Brief of Amici Curiae Due Process Institute and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: This case presents the question of whether a defendant's prior conviction for statutory rape under a state law that criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old can subject that defendant to a mandatory 15-year minimum sentence. Last year, the Ninth Circuit considered this question and answered "no." See United States v. Jaycox, 962 F.3d 1066. But in the decision below, the Fourth Circuit answered "yes." See Pet.App.12a-14a. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit increased Petitioner Hardin's mandatory minimum sentence from 5 years to 15 years and doubled the statutory maximum he faces from 20 years to 40. The Court should resolve this clear circuit split, which could subject hundreds of persons per year to thousands more collective years in prison based solely on geographical happenstance. As the petition explains, the Fourth Circuit's decision misinterprets the [*5] relevant statutory term--18 U.S.C. § 2252A (b)(1)'s mandatory sentencing enhancement for prior convictions "relating to . . . abusive sexual conduct involving a minor"--and distorts this Court's settled method for applying the categorical approach to sentencing enhancements. The result is a decision holding conduct that is legal in 39 States and the District of Columbia to be categorically "abusive sexual conduct" under a federal law that subjects a defendant to a 15-year mandatory minimum.

These briefs on a series of questions, including whether the government is required to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity to trigger mandatory minimum and increased maximum sentences in drug cases were filed in the 9^th Circuit by the federal defender and sentencing resource counsel in LA.

State legislatures and lawmakers in Washington, D.C., should consider passing statutes giving the right to defendants who have served 10 years to request a reconsideration of their sentences in light of their performance in prison and their achievements after being sentenced.

Second Circuit Decision to Vacate and Remand Based on Sentence Higher than Guidelines for Illegal Reentry into the United States.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in support of appellant.

Argument: The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive mandatory federal punishments widely rejected by state laws and practices such as was imposed on Mr. Young for his harmless possession of shotgun shells in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 922(g)(1). States generally do not prohibit the possession of shotgun ammunition by convicted felons, nor do they authorize a lengthy prison sentence for any comparable offense. State laws and federal practices are evolving away from severe extreme mandatory prison terms for low level offenses.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners.

Argument: Section 3553(e) cooperators are eligible for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions because such cooperators are not subject to statutorily required mandatory minimum sentences. Alternatively, § 3553(e) cooperators are eligible for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions under USSG § 1B1.10(c). Alternatively, § 3553(e) cooperators are eligible for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions because district courts necessarily consult the offense-specific guideline range at sentencing.