"And" means "and," it turns out. That's the holding of the Eleventh Circuit after en banc review in United States v. Garcon, Case No. 19-14650. Judge Pryor wrote the majority opinion, framing the question presented as such:
- The question presented in this appeal of a grant of safety valve relief is whether, in the First Step Act, the word “and” means “and.” The Act empowers a court to grant a criminal defendant relief from a mandatory minimum sentence, but that relief is available only if “the defendant does not have” “more than 4 criminal history points,” “a prior 3-point offense[,] . . . and . . . a prior 2-point violent offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(1)
The Court answered that question "yes," holding that a defendant has to check every box to lose eligibility. Because Garcon did not (he had a prior 3-point offense but did not have a prior 2-point violent offense or more than 4 criminal history points) he was eligible, as Judge Cohn had held at the district court level.
The Court's reasoning for its ruling? "And" is "conjunctive." Seems straightforward, right? Not to dissenting Judges Jordan, Branch, Grant, and Brasher. All endorsed a disjunctive reading of "and." It's hard to do justice to the reasoning of both sides, so the opinion is worth a read, if anything to re-familiarize yourself with the various canons of statutory construction, which get a lot of attention (even the "absurdity canon")! Very interesting lineup of dissenters and this is Judge Pryor's second opinion for the en banc Court in favor of a criminal defendant (he penned the Corrine Brown opinion).
The practical takeaway? A lot more defendants will now be eligible for safety valve relief. Opinion below.
UPDATE by DOM: Thanks for the great post, John. I had to jump in and congratulate the Federal Defender's Office for this big win. It's not every day that you get an en banc ruling for a criminal defendant. The case was handled by AFPDs Tracy Dreispul and Brenda Bryn. Wonderful.
Opinion by John Byrne on Scribd
3 comments:
Surprised you didn’t
mention this was a FPD case. Congrats Tracy and Brenda!
If the statute is as muddy and poorly written as this opinion, its concurrences, and its dissents would have us believe, why not call it unconstitutionally vague, and basically kick it back to congress to fix. I suspect that's what the founders would have had in mind.
Also, what a funny state of affairs. The 9th and 11th Circuits standing together/alone in a split against three other Circuits.
Post a Comment