United States v. Alexander Faulkner
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
Affirmed
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Alexander Faulkner’s fifth motion for compassionate-release, holding that any error in applying the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement was harmless and, in any event, a non-retroactive change in law such as Erlinger cannot constitute an “extraordinary and compelling reason” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rutherford and its own decision in Loggins, the court reiterated that non-retroactive legal changes do not qualify for compassionate-release relief, and therefore Faulkner was not entitled to a sentence reduction.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a non-retroactive change in criminal law can constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Circuit Positions
Non-retroactive changes in law cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate-release.
Non-retroactive changes in law may be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason (often in combination with other factors).
Conflict Summary
Several circuits, including the Eighth, Sixth, and Seventh, hold that a non-retroactive statutory or judicial change in the law may not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, while other circuits, such as the Fourth, Ninth, and First, allow district courts to weigh such non-retroactive changes—particularly when they create large sentence disparities—as part of the extraordinary-and-compelling analysis.