October Term 2010 · Docket 09-6822
Can judges weigh post-sentencing rehabilitation when resentencing?
The dispute centers on whether federal judges may consider a defendant's good behavior after the initial sentence when imposing a new sentence.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Parrish argued for the side that brought the case.
Mr. Ciongoli argued for the government.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the premise of judicial discretion.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the specific statutory provision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of judicial discretion during resentencing. The core conflict involves the interpretation of federal sentencing statutes. One side argues for broad judicial flexibility. The other side argues for strict procedural limits. The Court must resolve this statutory tension.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 6, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-19
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow judges to consider post-sentencing rehabilitation.
The government wants the Court to prohibit judges from considering post-sentencing rehabilitation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that categorical bars on variances lack valid legal basis.
The government argues that statutes prevent courts from evading appellate mandates on remand.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if Congress could pass a statute consistent with Booker.
Justice Sotomayor asked why a new sentence is not simply a new sentence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-37
Why it matters
This issue determines the practical power of federal judges. It affects how courts weigh rehabilitation in sentencing. It shapes the balance between statutory mandates and judicial discretion. It influences the finality of appellate orders. It impacts the treatment of defendants seeking resentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 51-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 51-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 27-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.