Background
Darius Whiting was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to cocaine and firearm-related offenses. He moved for a sentence reduction under Section eighteen U.S.C. thirty-five eighty-two subsection one subsection A subsection one, arguing that nonretroactive changes to the law and his rehabilitative efforts warranted relief.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s decision de novo regarding whether nonretroactive changes in law constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rutherford versus the United States, the court affirmed that when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the disparity between the current sentence and a hypothetical post-amendment sentence is not an extraordinary and compelling reason. The court also reviewed for abuse of discretion the district court’s finding that Section one thousand nine hundred fifty-three subsection A factors did not support reduction, noting Whiting’s extensive criminal history, violent conduct, and perjury.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that defendants cannot rely on nonretroactive statutory changes or rehabilitation alone to secure compassionate release, limiting the scope of sentence reductions in the Eighth Circuit.