Let's start today with a quote from the dissent:
"I laud the deference which the majority affords to the experience and judgment of federal district judges. At some point, however, this deference must yield to reality and common sense. Courts of appeal must patrol the boundaries of procedural fairness and remind themselves that deferential standards of review have real consequences for real people. In Mr. Wilson’s case, he will serve 52 additional months in prison for reasons that—I respectfully submit—are not clear."
In today's case, United States v. Wilson, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-50015 (9th Cir. 2021), the majority affirmed the district court’s denial of Wilson’s second motion for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
This is NOT a compassionate release case.
This is a case where the original sentence was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
There is a per curium majority, a concurrence, and a dissent.
As the quote above suggests, the case turned on the majority's conclusion that the district court, in denying the second modification motion, sufficiently explained its reasons.
There is also considerable discussion about whether Mr. Wilson's sentence even qualified for a reduction, because he had previously been resentenced.
