Pulsifer v. United States

Background

Mark Pulsifer pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and faced a 15‑year mandatory minimum. He asked for safety‑valve relief under 18 U.S.C. §3553(f), which lets some drug defendants avoid statutory minimums if five criteria are met. The frst criterion, Paragraph (f)(1), lists three criminal‑history items (A, B, and C). Pulsifer had two prior three‑point offenses; the Government said that made him ineligible, while Pulsifer argued the paragraph bars relief only if a defendant has all three items together. The District Court and the Eighth Circuit sided with the Government.

Reasoning

The Court framed the issue as how to read the word “and” in Paragraph (f)(1). It held that the statute creates a checklist: to get the safety valve a defendant must not have more than four criminal‑history points, must not have a prior three‑point offense, and must not have a prior two‑point violent offense. The Court rejected Pulsifer's “only if all three” reading because that would make Subparagraph A redundant and would misalign eligibility with how the Guidelines and statute separate more serious from less serious prior records. The Court also found the text and context sufficiently clear that the rule of lenity did not apply.

Real world impact

The decision limits who can avoid federal mandatory minimums: defendants with any one of the listed criminal‑history markers can be barred from safety‑valve relief. It interprets the First Step Act's safety‑valve expansion more narrowly than Pulsifer urged. Sentencing judges still apply the Guidelines and have some discretion, but many more defendants will be ineligible for relief under the Court's reading.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Gorsuch dissented (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson), arguing ordinary reading and lenity favor Pulsifer and that the First Step Act aimed to expand opportunities for individualized sentences.