USA V. ENGSTROM
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that Paul Engstrom qualified for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), vacated the below-minimum 46-month sentence, and remanded for resentencing. The court held Engstrom failed the § 3553(f)(5) disclosure requirement and, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pulsifer v. United States, is categorically ineligible for safety-valve relief because of a prior three-point offense.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether the word “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) is read conjunctively (defendant must meet all three criminal-history disqualifiers to be ineligible) or disjunctively (any one disqualifier bars safety-valve relief).
Circuit Positions
Conjunctive reading – defendant is ineligible only if all three § 3553(f)(1)(A)–(C) factors are present.
Disjunctive reading – defendant is ineligible if any one of the § 3553(f)(1)(A)–(C) factors is present.
Conflict Summary
The Ninth Circuit (pre-Pulsifer) read § 3553(f)(1) conjunctively, allowing safety-valve eligibility unless the defendant had all three listed criminal-history factors, while the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits read the same text disjunctively, barring relief if the defendant had any one of the factors.