Choosing sentencing guidelines
Moses v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Somorie Moses argues that Amendment 591 makes sentencing judges use guideline sections that do not fit the crime, violating the Fifth Amendment’s protection against unfair government procedures (due process).
- Who it affects
- Moses did not get Supreme Court review of his challenge, but the denial did not decide whether Amendment 591 violates due process.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
His petition asks whether that required starting point is unconstitutional even though judges have discretion in other parts of sentencing.
Moses challenged how Amendment 591 directs judges to choose the guideline section used to set a sentence's starting point.
Question presented
Whether Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines violates the Due Process Clause by requiring the application of Guidelines sections to factual situations (and crimes) inconsistent with the cross-referenced Guideline? Doing so violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by inserting an arbitrary and non-discretionary (i.e., required) element into the calculation of the “starting point” under the Guidelines, which is inconsistent with this Court’s Opinions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256, 263 (2017), even in an otherwise discretionary sentencing scheme.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.