60 F.4th 230
4th Cir.2023Background
- Defendant Cassity Jones pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥50g methamphetamine; the offense carried a 10-year statutory mandatory minimum.
- At sentencing Jones sought relief under the First Step Act safety‑valve, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), invoking § 3553(f)(1) despite having more than four criminal‑history points.
- § 3553(f)(1) disqualifies a defendant from safety‑valve relief if she “does not have—(A) more than 4 criminal history points; (B) a prior 3‑point offense; and (C) a prior 2‑point violent offense.”
- The district court adopted Jones’s reading that the conjunctive “and” requires all three characteristics to disqualify a defendant and applied the safety valve, reducing her guideline range and sentencing her to 100 months.
- The Government appealed, arguing that any one of the listed characteristics should disqualify a defendant (treating the list effectively as disjunctive).
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plain text and context show § 3553(f)(1)’s “and” is conjunctive — a defendant is ineligible only if she has all three listed criminal‑history characteristics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the word “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) is conjunctive (requiring all three listed criminal‑history characteristics to disqualify) or disjunctive (any one characteristic disqualifies). | "And" is conjunctive: a defendant is disqualified only if she has all three characteristics; having one or two does not bar safety‑valve relief. | The list should be read so that the negative distributes to each item (or otherwise treated as disjunctive): any one listed characteristic disqualifies a defendant. | The Court held "and" is conjunctive; § 3553(f)(1) excludes defendants only if they have all three listed characteristics. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 998 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2021) (construed § 3553(f)(1) conjunctively)
- United States v. Garcon, 54 F.4th 1274 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (adopted conjunctive reading; persuasive reasoning)
- United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2022) (adopted disjunctive reading)
- Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) (canon against surplusage discussed)
- United States v. Atl. Rsch. Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007) (surplusage canon limits)
- United States v. Wood, 378 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)