Brief of FAMM and NACDL as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for Writ of Certiorari). 

Argument: Every branch of government has recognized the profound injustice that resulted from the stacking of sentences imposed pursuant to Section 924(c). Congress finally remedied that wrong in the First Step Act. This Court should grant review to correct an egregious misunderstanding of Congress’s handiwork—and to remove an unnatural limitation on compassionate release that has produced an intractable circuit split. In the alternative, this Court should hold the Petition in abeyance and grant one or more of the other pending petitions that present the same issue.

Brief of FAMM and NACDL as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: Every branch of government has recognized the profound injustice that resulted from the stacking of sentences imposed pursuant to Section 924(c). Congress finally remedied that wrong in the First Step Act. This Court should grant review to correct an egregious misunderstanding of Congress’s handiwork—and to remove an unnatural limitation on compassionate release that has produced an intractable circuit split. In the alternative, this Court should hold the Petition in abeyance and grant one or more of the other pending petitions that present the same issue.

Brief of FAMM and NACDL as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: Every branch of government has recognized the profound injustice that resulted from the stacking of sentences imposed pursuant to Section 924(c). Congress finally remedied that wrong in the First Step Act. This Court should grant review to correct an egregious misunderstanding of Congress’s handiwork—and to remove an unnatural limitation on compassionate release that has produced an intractable circuit split. In the alternative, this Court should hold the Petition in abeyance and grant one or more of the other pending petitions that present the same issue.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Families Against Mandatory Minimums as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Judicial discretion to consider all information about the case and the offender is a time-honored principle of American law. Judicial discretion has historically been understood as a means of ensuring justice in individual cases. Congress has expressly affirmed judges' discretion to consider the fullest information possible. Abrogating judicial discretion in the sentencing context requires a clear statement of congressional intent. Section 924(c) does not abrogate a district court's discretion to consider the length of the section 924(c) mandatory minimum in imposing a sentence on the underlying offense. Sentence 924(c) does not clearly evince congressional intent to abrogate judicial discretion to consider the mandatory minimum sentence. Any ambiguity in section 924(c) must be resolved in favor of the defendant.

Corrected En Banc Amici Curiae Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Families Against Mandatory Minimums In Support of Petitioner-Appellant

Argument: Section 924(c)(3)’s plain language and Supreme Court precedent compel McGuire’s categorical approach. The rule of lenity requires application of the strict categorical approach. The categorical approach provides significant pragmatic benefits.