Pulsifer v. United States

Background

Mark Pulsifer pleaded guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine and faced a 15 year mandatory minimum. At sentencing he asked the court to apply the safety valve, which lets some people avoid statutory minimums if five criteria are met. The first criterion concerns a defendant’s criminal history and lists three features: (A) more than four criminal history points excluding one point offenses, (B) any prior three point offense, and (C) any prior two point violent offense, each as determined under the Sentencing Guidelines. Pulsifer had two prior three point offenses totaling six points; prosecutors argued that made him ineligible, the District Court agreed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court framed the question as whether the statute bars relief only when the defendant has all three items together or instead bars relief if he has any one of them. The majority held that "and" connects three distinct conditions: a person qualifies for safety valve relief only if the court finds he does not have more than four history points, does not have a prior three point offense, and does not have a prior two point violent offense. The opinion reasoned that Pulsifer’s reading would render Subparagraph A superfluous and would let some clearly more serious offenders get relief while barring less serious ones. The Court rejected the rule of lenity because it found the text and context dispositive and affirmed the lower courts.

Real world impact

The ruling means people with any one of the listed criminal history markers cannot get safety valve relief and so remain subject to mandatory minimum penalties. The decision resolves a split among courts of appeals and instructs sentencing courts how to apply the First Step Act criminal history check. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, urging a different reading and invoking lenity.