Pulsifer v. United States

Pulsifer v. United States, (Docket No. 22-340), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting, a provision of the federal sentencing statute as amended by the First Step Act.

Legal background
The federal sentencing statute, 18 U.S.C. 3553, contains a provision known as a "safety valve". The safety valve, located at § 3553(f), requires the trial courts to sentence qualifying defendants according to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, regardless of any statutory minimum sentences. Criteria for qualification are listed in § 3553(f)(1) through (5). Subsections (f)(2) through (f)(4) focus on the crime for which the defendant will be sentences, subsection (f)(5) focuses on the defendant's cooperation with the government, and subsection (f)(1) focuses on the defendant's prior criminal record. This subsection states that courts must impose sentences pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines if it finds that:

"(1) the defendant does not have—


 * (A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1–point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
 * (B) a prior 3–point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and [emphasis added]
 * (C) a prior 2–point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;"

Factual background
Mark Pulsifer pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to one count of distributing at least fifty grams of methamphetamine, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Since Pulsifer had previously been convicted of a serious drug felony, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years, unless he qualified for safety valve relief. Neither Pulsifer nor the United States disputed that Pulsifer met the requirements of § 3553(f)(2) through (f)(5). Turning to (f)(1), it is also undisputed that Pulsifer's prior criminal record triggers subsections (A) and (B), but that subsection (C) is not triggered. At sentencing, Pulsifer argued that he is eligible for safety valve relief because his prior conduct does not trigger (A), (B), and (C). The District Court disagreed, saying that a defendant whose prior record triggers (A), (B), or (C) is not eligible for safety valve relief. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

Courts of appeals are split on how to read the "and" in § 3553(f)(1). In the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, a defendant is eligible for safety valve relief unless his prior criminal record satisfies subsections (A), (B), and (C). In the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, a defendant is eligible for safety value relief unless his prior criminal record satisfies subsections (A), (B), or (C).

Supreme Court
On October 7, 2022, Pulsifer petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. On February 27, 2023, the Court granted certiorari. Oral arguments were heard on October 2, 2023. The case was argued by Shay Dvoretzky, on behalf of Pulsifer, and Frederick Liu, from the Solicitor General’s office on behalf of the United States.