Intended loss in sentencing
Marshall v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Malik K.
- What's at stake
- The petition leaves unresolved how the earlier loss guideline and its commentary apply to Marshall's case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Marshall has asked the Supreme Court to review his case, raising how much deference courts must give commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines and whether the pre-November 1, 2024 version of the loss guideline counts intended loss as well as actual loss.
The petition concerns the federal Sentencing Guidelines version in effect before November 1, 2024, and a 1993 Supreme Court decision about guideline commentary.
Question presented
1. Whether Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary in the Sentencing Guidelines? 2. Whether under the version of USSG §2B1.1(b)(1) effective at the time of the offense conduct in this matter and before November 1, 2024, the term “loss” means only actual loss or includes intended loss?
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the petition. No oral argument or decision date is set.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_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.