65
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ERIK LINDSEY HUGHES, ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No. 17-155 UNITED STATES, ) Respondent. ) Pages: 1 through 58 Place: Washington, D.C. Date: March 27, 2018 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 www.hrccourtreporters.com

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ERIK LINDSEY HUGHES )

Petitioner )

v ) No 17-155

UNITED STATES )

Respondent )

Pages 1 through 58

Place Washington DC

Date March 27 2018

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters

1220 L Street NW Suite 206 Washington DC 20005

(202) 628-4888wwwhrccourtreporterscom

1

2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3

4

5

6

7

8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

Official - Subject to Final Review

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ERIK LINDSEY HUGHES )

Petitioner )

v ) No 17-155

UNITED STATES )

Respondent )

Washington DC

Tuesday March 27 2018

The above-entitled matter came on for oral

argument before the Supreme Court of the United

States at 1010 am

APPEARANCES

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ Washington DC

on behalf of the Petitioner

RACHEL P KOVNER Assistant to the Solicitor

General Department of Justice Washington

DC on behalf of the Respondent

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

Official - Subject to Final Review

C O N T E N T S

ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ

On behalf of the Petitioner 3

ORAL ARGUMENT OF

RACHEL P KOVNER

On behalf of the Respondent 28

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ

On behalf of the Petitioner 54

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Official - Subject to Final Review

P R O C E E D I N G S

(1010 am)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well hear

first this morning Case 17-155 Hughes versus

the United States

Mr Shumsky

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The plurality and the concurrence in

Freeman recognized two ways that a sentence

following a C-type agreement can be based on

the guidelines Both are correct

Now those opinions differed in their

reasoning such that Freeman itself has no

precedential effect under Marks but the two

approaches can be united under a common

umbrella namely long-standing principles of

proximate and multiple causation And thats

because each form of guidelines reliance bears

a close connection to the sentence

The first -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Mr Shumsky could

you address one issue for me on this question

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

Official - Subject to Final Review

In a C agreement the government is giving up

often certain things Sometimes they dismiss

additional charges Sometimes as here they

give up filing a persistent felony certificate

Sometimes they agree not to prosecute someone

important to the defendant There are many

things that go into that bargain

How is a district court judge to

determine whether a departure from the

guideline range is justified In what

circumstances is what the government given up

valuable enough to keep the original deal and

when is it not

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me answer the question in two parts if I can

First of all those conditions the

way Your Honor describes C-type agreements are

true also for B-type agreements and for the

sort of C-type agreements that the government

concedes open the door to eligibility for

relief under 3582(c)(2) So this particular

category of C-type agreement that the

government is proposing to carve out is not

different in that way than all of these other

categories of agreements

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I think it

could be seen as relatively easy How

different were the charges and the exposure

from what was kept and what was the strength of

the governments evidence And the government

could talk about that at sentencing on those

charges

But the persistent felony offender

certificate is a different judgment which is

I the government think that a sentence of X

amount justifies giving up that certificate

How would a district court make up for the loss

of that belief by the government

MR SHUMSKY Well Justice Sotomayor

let me push back a little bit still on the

first part of my answer and then -- and then

get to the second part Again thats no

different than in a C-type agreement in which

there is a range defined by the guidelines and

the government agrees that those sentences are

eligible for relief under 3582(c)(2) The only

difference there is that rather than a number

potentially moving a bit a range will move a

bit So again I dont think its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 2: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3

4

5

6

7

8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

Official - Subject to Final Review

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ERIK LINDSEY HUGHES )

Petitioner )

v ) No 17-155

UNITED STATES )

Respondent )

Washington DC

Tuesday March 27 2018

The above-entitled matter came on for oral

argument before the Supreme Court of the United

States at 1010 am

APPEARANCES

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ Washington DC

on behalf of the Petitioner

RACHEL P KOVNER Assistant to the Solicitor

General Department of Justice Washington

DC on behalf of the Respondent

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

Official - Subject to Final Review

C O N T E N T S

ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ

On behalf of the Petitioner 3

ORAL ARGUMENT OF

RACHEL P KOVNER

On behalf of the Respondent 28

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ

On behalf of the Petitioner 54

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Official - Subject to Final Review

P R O C E E D I N G S

(1010 am)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well hear

first this morning Case 17-155 Hughes versus

the United States

Mr Shumsky

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The plurality and the concurrence in

Freeman recognized two ways that a sentence

following a C-type agreement can be based on

the guidelines Both are correct

Now those opinions differed in their

reasoning such that Freeman itself has no

precedential effect under Marks but the two

approaches can be united under a common

umbrella namely long-standing principles of

proximate and multiple causation And thats

because each form of guidelines reliance bears

a close connection to the sentence

The first -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Mr Shumsky could

you address one issue for me on this question

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

Official - Subject to Final Review

In a C agreement the government is giving up

often certain things Sometimes they dismiss

additional charges Sometimes as here they

give up filing a persistent felony certificate

Sometimes they agree not to prosecute someone

important to the defendant There are many

things that go into that bargain

How is a district court judge to

determine whether a departure from the

guideline range is justified In what

circumstances is what the government given up

valuable enough to keep the original deal and

when is it not

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me answer the question in two parts if I can

First of all those conditions the

way Your Honor describes C-type agreements are

true also for B-type agreements and for the

sort of C-type agreements that the government

concedes open the door to eligibility for

relief under 3582(c)(2) So this particular

category of C-type agreement that the

government is proposing to carve out is not

different in that way than all of these other

categories of agreements

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I think it

could be seen as relatively easy How

different were the charges and the exposure

from what was kept and what was the strength of

the governments evidence And the government

could talk about that at sentencing on those

charges

But the persistent felony offender

certificate is a different judgment which is

I the government think that a sentence of X

amount justifies giving up that certificate

How would a district court make up for the loss

of that belief by the government

MR SHUMSKY Well Justice Sotomayor

let me push back a little bit still on the

first part of my answer and then -- and then

get to the second part Again thats no

different than in a C-type agreement in which

there is a range defined by the guidelines and

the government agrees that those sentences are

eligible for relief under 3582(c)(2) The only

difference there is that rather than a number

potentially moving a bit a range will move a

bit So again I dont think its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 3: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

Official - Subject to Final Review

C O N T E N T S

ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ

On behalf of the Petitioner 3

ORAL ARGUMENT OF

RACHEL P KOVNER

On behalf of the Respondent 28

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF

ERIC SHUMSKY ESQ

On behalf of the Petitioner 54

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Official - Subject to Final Review

P R O C E E D I N G S

(1010 am)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well hear

first this morning Case 17-155 Hughes versus

the United States

Mr Shumsky

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The plurality and the concurrence in

Freeman recognized two ways that a sentence

following a C-type agreement can be based on

the guidelines Both are correct

Now those opinions differed in their

reasoning such that Freeman itself has no

precedential effect under Marks but the two

approaches can be united under a common

umbrella namely long-standing principles of

proximate and multiple causation And thats

because each form of guidelines reliance bears

a close connection to the sentence

The first -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Mr Shumsky could

you address one issue for me on this question

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

Official - Subject to Final Review

In a C agreement the government is giving up

often certain things Sometimes they dismiss

additional charges Sometimes as here they

give up filing a persistent felony certificate

Sometimes they agree not to prosecute someone

important to the defendant There are many

things that go into that bargain

How is a district court judge to

determine whether a departure from the

guideline range is justified In what

circumstances is what the government given up

valuable enough to keep the original deal and

when is it not

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me answer the question in two parts if I can

First of all those conditions the

way Your Honor describes C-type agreements are

true also for B-type agreements and for the

sort of C-type agreements that the government

concedes open the door to eligibility for

relief under 3582(c)(2) So this particular

category of C-type agreement that the

government is proposing to carve out is not

different in that way than all of these other

categories of agreements

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I think it

could be seen as relatively easy How

different were the charges and the exposure

from what was kept and what was the strength of

the governments evidence And the government

could talk about that at sentencing on those

charges

But the persistent felony offender

certificate is a different judgment which is

I the government think that a sentence of X

amount justifies giving up that certificate

How would a district court make up for the loss

of that belief by the government

MR SHUMSKY Well Justice Sotomayor

let me push back a little bit still on the

first part of my answer and then -- and then

get to the second part Again thats no

different than in a C-type agreement in which

there is a range defined by the guidelines and

the government agrees that those sentences are

eligible for relief under 3582(c)(2) The only

difference there is that rather than a number

potentially moving a bit a range will move a

bit So again I dont think its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 4: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Official - Subject to Final Review

P R O C E E D I N G S

(1010 am)

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well hear

first this morning Case 17-155 Hughes versus

the United States

Mr Shumsky

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The plurality and the concurrence in

Freeman recognized two ways that a sentence

following a C-type agreement can be based on

the guidelines Both are correct

Now those opinions differed in their

reasoning such that Freeman itself has no

precedential effect under Marks but the two

approaches can be united under a common

umbrella namely long-standing principles of

proximate and multiple causation And thats

because each form of guidelines reliance bears

a close connection to the sentence

The first -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Mr Shumsky could

you address one issue for me on this question

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

Official - Subject to Final Review

In a C agreement the government is giving up

often certain things Sometimes they dismiss

additional charges Sometimes as here they

give up filing a persistent felony certificate

Sometimes they agree not to prosecute someone

important to the defendant There are many

things that go into that bargain

How is a district court judge to

determine whether a departure from the

guideline range is justified In what

circumstances is what the government given up

valuable enough to keep the original deal and

when is it not

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me answer the question in two parts if I can

First of all those conditions the

way Your Honor describes C-type agreements are

true also for B-type agreements and for the

sort of C-type agreements that the government

concedes open the door to eligibility for

relief under 3582(c)(2) So this particular

category of C-type agreement that the

government is proposing to carve out is not

different in that way than all of these other

categories of agreements

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I think it

could be seen as relatively easy How

different were the charges and the exposure

from what was kept and what was the strength of

the governments evidence And the government

could talk about that at sentencing on those

charges

But the persistent felony offender

certificate is a different judgment which is

I the government think that a sentence of X

amount justifies giving up that certificate

How would a district court make up for the loss

of that belief by the government

MR SHUMSKY Well Justice Sotomayor

let me push back a little bit still on the

first part of my answer and then -- and then

get to the second part Again thats no

different than in a C-type agreement in which

there is a range defined by the guidelines and

the government agrees that those sentences are

eligible for relief under 3582(c)(2) The only

difference there is that rather than a number

potentially moving a bit a range will move a

bit So again I dont think its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 5: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

Official - Subject to Final Review

In a C agreement the government is giving up

often certain things Sometimes they dismiss

additional charges Sometimes as here they

give up filing a persistent felony certificate

Sometimes they agree not to prosecute someone

important to the defendant There are many

things that go into that bargain

How is a district court judge to

determine whether a departure from the

guideline range is justified In what

circumstances is what the government given up

valuable enough to keep the original deal and

when is it not

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me answer the question in two parts if I can

First of all those conditions the

way Your Honor describes C-type agreements are

true also for B-type agreements and for the

sort of C-type agreements that the government

concedes open the door to eligibility for

relief under 3582(c)(2) So this particular

category of C-type agreement that the

government is proposing to carve out is not

different in that way than all of these other

categories of agreements

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I think it

could be seen as relatively easy How

different were the charges and the exposure

from what was kept and what was the strength of

the governments evidence And the government

could talk about that at sentencing on those

charges

But the persistent felony offender

certificate is a different judgment which is

I the government think that a sentence of X

amount justifies giving up that certificate

How would a district court make up for the loss

of that belief by the government

MR SHUMSKY Well Justice Sotomayor

let me push back a little bit still on the

first part of my answer and then -- and then

get to the second part Again thats no

different than in a C-type agreement in which

there is a range defined by the guidelines and

the government agrees that those sentences are

eligible for relief under 3582(c)(2) The only

difference there is that rather than a number

potentially moving a bit a range will move a

bit So again I dont think its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 6: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I think it

could be seen as relatively easy How

different were the charges and the exposure

from what was kept and what was the strength of

the governments evidence And the government

could talk about that at sentencing on those

charges

But the persistent felony offender

certificate is a different judgment which is

I the government think that a sentence of X

amount justifies giving up that certificate

How would a district court make up for the loss

of that belief by the government

MR SHUMSKY Well Justice Sotomayor

let me push back a little bit still on the

first part of my answer and then -- and then

get to the second part Again thats no

different than in a C-type agreement in which

there is a range defined by the guidelines and

the government agrees that those sentences are

eligible for relief under 3582(c)(2) The only

difference there is that rather than a number

potentially moving a bit a range will move a

bit So again I dont think its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 7: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Official - Subject to Final Review

categorically different in that way

But to answer the second part of the

question the district court judge exercising

her or his discretion will apply the 3553(a)

factors just like they do in any other case

where theres a request for discretionary

relief under 3582(c)(2)

Remember that this is only a question

of eligibility Its not a guarantee of

relief It just enables the case ordinarily to

go back to the very same district court judge

who is the one who approved the agreement in

the first place and determine whether under the

circumstances -- again the 3553(a)

circumstances -- some adjustment is

appropriate

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR When wouldnt any

-- what would disqualify a defendant from

eligibility The plurality said this

determination has to be made on a case-by-case

basis But as I read your brief I cant -shy

what are the scenarios where you think someone

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 8: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

Official - Subject to Final Review

two ways This is no different than any other

sentencing determination in the sense that it

is predicated on the 3553(a) factors And

so -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR No Im saying we

read the transcript Government comes in under

a C agreement where it says were not

recommending a guideline sentence We want to

deviate from it because we think he cooperated

but not enough to be substantial He has an

ill child whatever the reasons are we think a

lower sentence is appropriate and this is the

sentence we picked

Would that defendant under your

reading still be eligible to go back to the

district court for reconsideration

MR SHUMSKY Well just to clarify

Your Honor if it is a -- a sentence under

1B110 cannot drop below the bottom of an

amended guidelines range So that theres a

floor on -- on how much the movement can be

But again it will simply be the

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 9: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Official - Subject to Final Review

scenario where someone wouldnt be eligible

MR SHUMSKY No Your Honor Im

sorry Perhaps I misunderstood the question

In a circumstance for instance under

which the district court says -- using the

discretion that it has post-Booker under cases

like Gall and Spears the district court says

Im not applying the guidelines at all I

disagree with the guidelines as a policy

matter under those circumstances its very

hard to see how in any ordinary meaning of the

term a sentence is based on the guidelines

But absent circumstances like those

ordinarily a sentence will be based on the

guidelines and that only makes sense This

Court has said over and over and over

post-Booker in cases like Gall and Peugh and

most recently in Molina-Martinez that

sentences are ordinarily based on the

guidelines

And so it wont be surprising if

indeed a district court concludes that thats

what occurs Not only is a sentence bargained

for in the shadow of the guidelines as the

concurrence in Freeman put it that is where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 10: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Official - Subject to Final Review

the parties start

The United States Attorneys Manual

directs prosecutors not just to charge but to

make plea-bargaining determinations consistent

with the guidelines Defense attorneys do

exactly the same thing when they sit down with

their client for the first time they look at

the guidelines and say Heres what youre

looking at

And so it shouldnt be surprising

that ordinarily other than in the sort of

relatively extreme circumstances I was alluding

to a moment ago sentences indeed will be

based on the guidelines

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS The first

question we posed was how to apply Marks in

this situation and I wonder if Im a court of

appeals judge it seems to me the most

important thing in deciding the case is to make

sure that Im not reversed And it seems to me

the best way to do that is through the -shy

whatever you want to call it the walking

through sort of counting out what would happen

if you count where the different votes are

And it seems to me if you take any

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 11: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Official - Subject to Final Review

other approach youre -- youre subject to

reversal because by definition a majority of

the Court here would -- would reach a different

result

MR SHUMSKY I would say a couple of

things about that Mr Chief Justice

First of all Marks focuses on the

holding or the judgment of the Court And so

under Marks what were trying to figure out is

whether there is precedent Ordinarily only a

courts holding qualifies as precedent and a

holding is the reasoning thats necessary to

support the judgment

The governments alternate approach

its run-the-facts-through-the-opinions

approach first of all Im not sure it even

purports to be an application of Marks in that

sense

Second of all it is predicated upon

counting dissenting votes And Marks itself

says quite specifically that thats not what

Marks is about

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 12: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

Official - Subject to Final Review

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -- go

ahead

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS As a practical

matter though in a particular case that

would have the court of appeals writing an

opinion that would be subject to reversal

MR SHUMSKY And that -- and that

Mr Chief Justice is the other thing I was

going to say I think that -- that the way you

put it a moment ago -- a moment ago in asking

the question is that a lower court would be

wise to look at what the opinions say

And of course it would be The same

way that lower courts are wise to look at this

Courts dicta to look at concurring

opinions -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Then why should

they -- why should they pretend that this court

had an opinion that counts as precedent They

can say All right we see four Justices

thought this two Justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 13: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Official - Subject to Final Review

give our best judgment of what the right answer

is without being bound by a minority of the

Justices

MR SHUMSKY Justice Ginsburg that

-- we think that that is exactly correct A

lower court is wise to pay attention to the

votes of Justices but that is a very different

question than whether there is binding

precedent

And here what the Eleventh Circuit

concluded was simply that it had to follow the

concurring opinion in Freeman that it was the

vote of one Justice was the law of the land

notwithstanding the fact that eight Justices

had sharply disagreed with that reasoning

And so Justice Ginsburg we think

that thats not right Now to be clear a

lower court would say I am going to count

votes I am going to predict what the Supreme

Court might do

But I think that a slightly different

hypothetical points out the difficulty with

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 14: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

Official - Subject to Final Review

nearly identically constituted court on the

exact same question 15 years have passed or 20

years have passed It would be quite strange

under those circumstances for a court to engage

in that same kind of nose counting and say

Well because that one Justice 20 years ago

thought this thing that is the only decision

we can reach

JUSTICE ALITO Well Marks has been

the law for 40 years and for better or worse

it has had a big effect I think on what we

have understood to be the jurisprudence of this

Court and what the lower courts have understood

to be our precedents and on the way in which

Justices of this Court go about doing their

job

And if we abandon anything like Marks

perhaps it requires -- it certainly could

benefit from some clarification and maybe some

refinement -- but if we abandon it completely

it could have pretty profound changes Why

should we do that

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 15: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Official - Subject to Final Review

subset test or as this Court put it in

Nichols looking for a common denominator is

the most sensible way to do that consistent

with the norms about precedent and holdings

that I was alluding to earlier Let me -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well you know

Professor -- Professor Re wrote an interesting

amicus brief in this case arguing that the

logical subset approach is illogical And I

think there might be something to that Let me

give you this example

Lets say that nine people are

deciding which movie to go and see and four of

them want to see a romantic comedy and two of

them want to see a romantic comedy in French

and four of them want to see a mystery

Now is the -- are -- are the -- are

the two who want to see the romantic comedy in

French is that a logical subset of those who

want to see a romantic comedy

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito the

answer is it depends And those people could

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 16: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Official - Subject to Final Review

nothing more than that

MR SHUMSKY Then it is a fair

presumption at least under certain

circumstances I cant speak to romantic

comedies in French but there are a couple of

this Courts precedents under which contrary

to what Professor Re has said logical subsets

do in fact make a great sense -- a great deal

of sense if not all the time then nearly all

the time So if you -shy

JUSTICE ALITO I mean if thats a

logical subset I think theres a serious

problem with the argument because the four who

want to see a romantic comedy might think I

dont want to see anything in a foreign

language particularly in French Id rather

go see a mystery or something else

MR SHUMSKY So Justice Alito and I

think this is the key to the -- the puzzle

anytime two people be they Justices of this

Court or people going to see a romantic comedy

can say heres how far I go but I dont agree

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see Justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 17: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

Official - Subject to Final Review

less than that is legally wrong And under

those circumstances we would know what those

Justices think And of course Justices would

have like they always have the prerogative to

articulate how far their view goes and whether

something less makes sense But at least as a

way of understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well Im

sorry but that means that you would want them

to engage in -- in dicta In other words

youre saying lets say someone has an

absolute view of the First Amendment You

cant have any restraints at all

And the concurring opinion says well

I agree with that except when it comes to you

know Communists then I think they shouldnt

have the right to speak And you dont know

that the people who think theres an absolute

right may say well its absolute but if

youre going to carve out anybody youve got

to carve out everybody

And what youre suggesting is that to

make things clearer for the courts of appeals

down the road those Justices should talk about

these hypothetical cases about how they would

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 18: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

Official - Subject to Final Review

apply the rule in the event you know that

this or that happens

And I wonder if thats more

problematic than the difficulties you have with

just sort of the counting -- counting-through

approach

MR SHUMSKY I dont think it is

Your Honor The point is simply that Justices

have the prerogative like they always do to

articulate how far their rule goes But I do

want to make sure Justice Alito to get to at

least a couple of examples that demonstrate

that the logical subset while it may be

imperfect like all of these rules are at

least has some significant utility contrary to

what Professor Re said

So if you look like -- at a case like

Ford that was interpreted in Panetti you have

a plurality of Justices saying we require full

competency proceedings with all of the

hallmarks of a trial and Justice Powell

writing separately saying Something less than

that is enough We dont need

cross-examination We dont need live

witnesses

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 19: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

Official - Subject to Final Review

There its pretty fair to say that the

lesser version is included within the broader

version that the plurality would have wanted

or in a case like Caldwell -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Thats covered by

Marks automatically

MR SHUMSKY Im not sure what it

means to say that something is covered -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Meaning Marks says

whats the narrowest holding of a plurality in

a concurrence And under that interpretation

the literal interpretation of Marks your

situations covered Were talking about a

situation where the reasoning doesnt

necessarily overlap completely

MR SHUMSKY Again two points

Justice Sotomayor

I think that -- that the language of

narrowest in Marks is frankly part of the

problem here And that is the strength of -shy

of what Professor Re has said Whatever

guidance Marks may have provided its probably

caused more confusion than -- than guidance

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Why -- but is the

confusion -- is the -- why is the confusion

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 20: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Official - Subject to Final Review

necessarily so evil Meaning the government

makes a counterpoint which says you want

something to -- to follow a split decision by

the Court You want some even-handed

predictable and consistent development of the

law at least on some level And even if

theres some confusion there is some

predictability thats going on

Under the Re test there isnt any

Its as if the decision was made and nothing

has happened because were still sending it

back for the lower courts to be without real

guidance

MR SHUMSKY I think the strength of

Professor Res view Justice Sotomayor is that

the current situation is not in fact

providing much if any guidance And at pages

16 to 17 of his amicus brief and in the

underlying paper he lays out innumerable

circuit splits that have resulted from efforts

to attempt to apply the Marks rule And so the

idea would be -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Mr Shumsky

MR SHUMSKY -- simply that -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Im sorry Please

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 21: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Official - Subject to Final Review

continue

MR SHUMSKY Well simply that -shy

that to return to the -- the older historical

norm of actual majority rule would provide

clarity And absent that percolation could

occur in the lower courts which would aid this

Court in its ultimate decision-making

JUSTICE KAGAN I mean the question

is what is the second best Were in a world

in which the first-best option which is five

people agreeing on the reasoning that doesnt

exist And so everything else is going to

be -- is going to have some kind of problem

attached to it and were really picking among

problems

I guess what I wonder is why you say

the -- the solution that we should pick is just

a solution in which this Court is giving no

guidance and courts are out there on their own

and doing their own thing and splitting with

each other dividing with each other not

having any way to resolve these cases which

sounds like chaos to me

And the government -- what the

government says is Look this isnt the best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 22: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Official - Subject to Final Review

approach but its the second best approach is

if you dont have common reasoning just ask

about results And if you can look at a case

and know that there are five justices on the

Supreme Court who think X rather than Y then

you should go with X

And we can talk about how that counts

dissenting votes or you know give various

theoretical objections to that but in the end

we do try to get to five here We know how to

get to five in some of these cases even if the

five depend on different reasoning Why isnt

that just the second-best approach

MR SHUMSKY So just to clarify if I

may Justice Kagan and then to turn to that

our position is not that there should be chaos

nor -- nor at least in the first instance that

the Re argument is the best one Logical

subset or common denominator as the DC

Circuit put it in King versus Palmer is -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well you carve out a

set of cases and then when its not

completely nested in the way that you want it

to be you vote for chaos And I guess Im

asking why vote for chaos in all of these

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 23: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Official - Subject to Final Review

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan -- and I dont want to quibble -- but I

mean the idea is not that its chaos its

that the lower courts can then percolate the

issue as this Court often invites them to do

JUSTICE BREYER Well why -shy

MR SHUMSKY But let me -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah go ahead

MR SHUMSKY Sorry let me -- let me

turn to the question about the -- the running

the facts through the opinions approach I

mean it is not just a secondary concern that

that relies on dissents That is quite

contrary to everything that this Court has said

for not just decades but hundreds of years

about how to identify precedents and holdings

if dicta is not precedent it doesnt count as

part of the holding of the Court then surely

the votes that arent even necessary to the

judgment -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Well Mr Shumsky I

think -- I think your approach relies on

dissents sometimes too because take one of

these logical subset cases You have a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 24: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Official - Subject to Final Review

concurrence that is a logical subset of the

plurality And you say well the concurrence

controls And thats true even as to times

where the concurrence splits off with the

plurality and joins with the dissent

So youre counting dissents too I

think

MR SHUMSKY To be very clear about

this Your Honor that is not our position

that the concurring opinion would only be given

force insofar as or to the extent that it is an

opinion that is necessary to the judgment But

I -- I do want to -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN Its necessary to the

judgment but the result of applying -- but

you know the plurality would grant relief in

this much -- this many cases The concurrence

would grant relief in many fewer cases and deny

relief in lots of cases where the dissent would

also deny relief So by privileging the

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is because the concurrence plus the

dissent equals five

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 25: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Official - Subject to Final Review

MR SHUMSKY I -- I dont think so

Justice Kagan And Justice Sotomayor I think

this gets back to a question that you were

asking earlier

If the Venn diagrams overlap if the

Russian dolls dont fit then under those

circumstances its not a logical subset

JUSTICE KAGAN Im talking about a

case in which it is completely nested but the

-- but -- it is completely nested but the

concurrence is sometimes granting the relief

that the plurality would but sometimes

instead reaching the result the dissent would

And by saying the concurrence controls

in those cases youre giving effect to the

times when the concurrence plus the dissent

equals five

MR SHUMSKY I think that for the

same reasons I was indicating about reliance on

-- about the importance of holdings we would

not say that it controls under those

circumstances

Now perhaps the next case might come

up and there would be an opportunity to

evaluate that but Justice Kagan I want to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 26: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

Official - Subject to Final Review

make sure to answer -shy

JUSTICE KAGAN So in those

circumstances there is no result

MR SHUMSKY Well there would be a

bare result certainly but the concurrence

would not be controlling as to cases in which

it has to be paired with the dissent

I want to make sure to answer directly

your question Justice Kagan about whats

wrong with the governments approach and then

I might try and -- and turn back to the -- the

3582 question for a moment if I can

What is wrong with the governments

approach is not just that it is contrary to

these pretty fundamental notions about

precedent and holdings but because it would

stunt the development of the law

It would say at precisely the moment

at which this Court is unable to reach a

majority the lower courts should stop trying

to sort these issues out We should stop

hoping that we can get to an actual result

whether because of the coming together of the

lower courts or because a justice changes their

mind or a justice joins a -shy

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 27: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im sorry Why is

the development of the law stunted completely

You tell us that theres confusion in a split

which suggests to me that the split is

occasioned likely in part by the circuits

view of the persuasiveness of the split of some

other sides argument on the split

So its not I dont think

necessarily that it stifles discussion in any

meaningful way Youre just -- you just dont

-- you say this kind of confusion I dont

like

MR SHUMSKY I think the point is a

bit different Justice Sotomayor in the

following way The idea would be that once

this Court splinters and when there is no

middle ground as the government puts it at

that point all that is left for a lower court

to do is run the facts through the opinions

You dont think about the issue

further You dont attempt to resolve it on

the merits You just plug things into the

vote-counting algorithm and get bare results in

bare cases If -shy

JUSTICE ALITO And can I just ask you

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 28: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

Official - Subject to Final Review

this quick question Suppose that theres a

majority of the Court that -- that agrees that

a particular party is entitled to relief but

there is no majority as to the provision of the

Constitution that provides the relief

What happens in that situation

MR SHUMSKY I -shy

JUSTICE ALITO So thats never a

precedent unless one of the two -- and both of

these groups feel very strongly that the other

is wrong in identifying the constitutional

provision So one of them has to give way or

else this issue is never going to be resolved

MR SHUMSKY I think that -- let me

answer your question Justice Alito and then

-- and then reserve the balance of my time

I think that that is the

quintessential case in which there is not

precedent If we have less than a majority of

this Court resolving a question of

constitutional import on different grounds

then it would be very strange to think that the

constitutional issue has been resolved for all

time

JUSTICE ALITO So the lower courts

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 29: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Official - Subject to Final Review

would then be free to deny relief in -- in all

these cases

MR SHUMSKY In a case just like the

one that had been before the Court surely -shy

and this goes to my answer to the Chief

Justice Surely the lower courts would be

wise to pay very careful attention to all of

the opinions of this Court but if there is no

majority on the question then there is no

precedent

If I can reserve the balance of my

time

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

MR SHUMSKY Thank you

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Ms Kovner

ORAL ARGUMENT OF RACHEL P KOVNER

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MS KOVNER Mr Chief Justice and

may it please the Court

The circuit split here concerns the

interpretation of the Marks rule And this

Court should decide this case by rejecting the

view of the two circuits that treat divided

decisions of this Court as entitled to no

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 30: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

Official - Subject to Final Review

precedential effect unless the separate

opinions of this Court share the same

reasoning

That approach is flatly contrary to

what this Court said in Marks Its contrary

to how this Court has applied Marks And it

undercuts the principle of vertical stare

decisis that generally requires lower courts to

decide cases in the way that this Court would

decide them

Now take Petitioner raised two main

objections to that The first is an argument

that Marks as this Court has developed it

requires considering dissents

I do want to make clear thats only

true in a limited sense When this Court

applies the Marks doctrine its picking one of

the opinions that led to the judgment in the

case at hand and treating that judgment -shy

treating that opinion as controlling

So its -- the Marks -shy

JUSTICE GINSBURG Even though its

the opinion of only one So lets take I

think an illustration thats familiar

For years it was thought that Justice

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 31: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

Official - Subject to Final Review

Powells opinion in Bakke was controlling

That was a 4-4-1 And he was in the middle

But none of the others took the position that

he did So a single Justice was thought to

determine what this Courts precedent for the

nots was

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that this Court has consistently

applied Marks in that way by picking an opinion

thats not subscribed to by the members -- by

all the members of the Court or by a majority

and describing that as the controlling opinion

And I think the reason Justice

Ginsburg is that when the Court applies that

opinion its not applying an opinion that

leads to the result thats favored by only one

member of the Court Its applying an opinion

that leads to the result thats favored by a

majority of the Court And in every

application the application of that opinion

also is supported by the reasoning of a

majority of members of this Court

JUSTICE KAGAN That might be true

but it might not be I mean there are middle

ground positions that in a 4-1-4 case where

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 32: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

Official - Subject to Final Review

the four would say well if we cant get what

we want wed rather have the middle ground

position But there are some cases where there

are middle ground positions which seem utterly

incoherent to anybody else incoherent or maybe

its based on what you think is an

impermissible criterion or for some reason the

middle ground is the worst of all possible

worlds

So how do you deal with those sorts of

cases

MS KOVNER So we think ordinarily

that the opinions in the case itself will deal

with that in the following sense So to take

Freeman as an example theres I think a sort

of broad opinion a in-between opinion and a

narrow opinion

And its true that some opinions in

Freeman criticize the middle ground but

nevertheless the plurality in Freeman voted

with the concurrence to create a common result

I think if the plurality thought that

it were intolerable to have that middle ground

position control the day the plurality could

say given that we cant have our rule our

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 33: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

Official - Subject to Final Review

second choice is the categorical rule on the

other side and could join that opinion

But we think the plurality indicated

through its vote that thats not what it wanted

to have happen It wanted to join with the

concurrence and have that control the day

JUSTICE BREYER So how -- look I -shy

I dont know what Id write in this case And

the reason I would write if we have to get to

this issue the reason I dont know is because

I think law is part art and part science And

you learn in law school and thereafter how to

read an opinion There are no absolute rules

Marbury versus Madison two-thirds of

it is not necessary to the conclusion So

should we pay no attention to it Of course

we pay attention to it

And then I can cite five but I wont

where it may be that on this matter there was a

unanimous court but nobody believes it because

it wasnt you see And they all go off

And Powell of course is in part key

because he had a sensible view And the

public the lawyers the clients the other

judges are the ones who tell us that over

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 34: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Official - Subject to Final Review

time

So if you ask me to write something

better than Marks I dont know what to say

except what I just said which will help

nobody

(Laughter)

MS KOVNER So I -- I think the

question that lower courts are in need of

guidance on in this case -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well what guidance

I mean what

MS KOVNER Sure

JUSTICE BREYER You talk about the

French movie That was great -- I mean fine

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER There I say you mean

they really dont want to see The Philadelphia

Story They must be crazy All right

(Laughter)

JUSTICE BREYER But -- but -- but -shy

but you see if you have of course a real

French comedy fine But suppose you have -shy

to show off -- Mr Hulots Holiday you know

its a comedy but is it romantic you see

(Laughter)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 35: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Official - Subject to Final Review

JUSTICE BREYER I mean thats what

law is about And now suddenly you want us to

write a rule They -- theyve done all right

with Marks Leave it alone

MS KOVNER So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER And say -- interpret

it with common sense

MS KOVNER So I agree with that but

I think there is one clarification that theres

a circuit split on and it would be helpful for

this Court to resolve

There are two circuits that say

contrary to the views of other circuits that

you need to have not only shared results which

I think -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

whats right we dont tell them

MS KOVNER No I think if the Court

can say Marks and I think the one thing that

the Court can add to Marks if it wants to

provide further guidance is that what the

Marks rule is doing is its achieving vertical

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 36: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Official - Subject to Final Review

stare decisis Its a way of ensuring that

lower courts decide cases in the manner that

this Court would

And so to the extent that in a

particular case theres difficulty in

identifying one opinion as the narrowest a

thing that the courts can also do is run the

facts of the case through multiple opinions and

see whether the result that is achieved there

is the result thats favored by a majority of

the court Of course thats something this

Court has done in -- in -- in applying Marks

too

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR May I ask two

questions I dont want you to ignore the

third question of the petition

But the first one is if we are able

to reach a majority in the Freeman question

should we reach the Marks inquiry and if so

how and why I mean we usually -- it would be

pure dicta

MS KOVNER I think thats right

Your Honor And so the Court I think has a

choice about how it wants to resolve this case

And we would urge the Court to resolve the case

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 37: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Official - Subject to Final Review

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just the question the underlying Marks

question of do you need common reasoning or

only common results So thats really the

issue thats divided the lower courts

As a second sort of reason that

relates to that Your Honor is Freeman itself

is a statutory interpretation question that

this Court -- you know we obviously took a

broader position than Your Honors opinion in

Freeman but this Court resolved that issue

Its essentially an issue for how the parties

are going to bargain

So the parties have arranged their

expectations in subsequent cases including

this one around the understanding that Freeman

provided a rule for how their plea agreements

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR And -- and what

the prosecutors are now doing is making a

waiver of any amendment of the guidelines in

almost all C agreements

MS KOVNER I -- I dont -- I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 38: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

Official - Subject to Final Review

actually think thats the case empirically

Your Honor I think that for the most part

prosecutors have been understanding that

Freeman is the rule and we havent seen to my

knowledge the vast majority of districts

actually incorporate those kinds of waivers

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Now I have a

question on the substance of -- of the

pluralitys position There is some force to

the argument that -- and examples provided in

the briefing -- where the government goes to

sentencing and says we did this in light of the

guidelines

And under the concurrence in Freeman

that would not count Is -- is that right

And why is that right If -- if the prosecutor

is telling the judge Im doing this because of

the guidelines what difference does it make

that its in the plea agreement or not Its

still a representation by the government

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

I think that once Freeman was established we

can expect the parties to negotiate around the

rule in Freeman And so to the extent that

the parties have an understanding that this is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 39: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

Official - Subject to Final Review

a sentence based on the guidelines within the

meaning of Your Honors opinion in Freeman

thats something they know that they should be

putting in the plea agreement

And we think that its desirable to

have that one place to look for where the

parties understanding is rather than sort of

combing through the background negotiations of

the parties

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except the

plurality says theres a player that youre not

considering which is the judge and the judge

accepts the agreement because a prosecutor has

gotten up and said we think it should be within

the guidelines Its not in the plea

agreement but the prosecutor is guiding the

judge and incentivizing the judge to accept

this agreement with that representation

So why shouldnt that be recognized

MS KOVNER So I think you know

both Your Honors opinion in Freeman and the

dissenting opinion in Freeman sort of note that

theres a real difference between background

considerations that go into what the deal is

and then what the sort of deal ultimately is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 40: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Official - Subject to Final Review

Ultimately in a C agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determined sentence and they urge the court to

impose that -- that sentence And that is as

you know Your Honors opinion indicated and -shy

and -- and four other Justices agreed that is

what the sentence is based on

And if theres doubt about that I

think there are a few things that the Court can

look to to resolve that doubt The first is

the Sentencing Commissions guidance

The Sentencing Commissions guidance

indicates that the only guidelines that should

be changed through 3582 are the guidelines that

were actually applied when the defendant was

sentenced And thats surely not what happens

in a C case

And the other I think is sort of

reasons of administrability that Your Honors

opinion alludes to in Freeman

The alternative is on Petitioners

approach youre going to be combing through

the record to see whether in a particular case

the by -- the guidelines bore a sufficiently

close connection to the sentence Thats not

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 41: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Official - Subject to Final Review

an administrable inquiry

And then on the back end as Your

Honors opinion alludes to in Freeman youre

going to have a judge trying to determine after

the fact what is the alternative agreement that

this part -- the parties would have entered

into if -- if the guidelines had been

different

And thats not the kind of -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well thats -shy

thats the way I phrased the question earlier

but really the question is not what will the

parties do The question really is what will I

do

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I mean because

every C agreement before it takes effect has to

be approved by the judge

So really its the judge who has to

determine would I have accepted this or not -shy

MS KOVNER I -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- knowing that

the guideline was in error

MS KOVNER I actually think thats

the way in which a C plea is fundamentally

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 42: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

Official - Subject to Final Review

different from other kinds of pleas as -- as

Your Honors opinion in Freeman alludes to

which is part of a -- part of a C plea is that

the parties agreed to it And so if a judge

said Im not going to accept this plea youd

be back to the drawing board for the parties

And so thats why Petitioners approach means

the judge has to figure out okay if the judge

said no what would the parties have done under

that circumstance

And as Your Honor alluded to in -- in

-- in your questions often the government has

given up for instance a mandatory minimum

you know additional charges you know In

this case I think theres no reason to think

that the government would have agreed to a more

favorable deal if the guidelines had been

different

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

says the commission that the judge -- its

the judge who will depart if thats the

agreement and it says the agreed -- he has to

write his reasons in writing as to why the

agreed sentence departs from the applicable

guideline range for justifiable reasons

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 43: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

Official - Subject to Final Review

So if the guideline range is 120

months he says why it departs from that and

he has some reasons And if its 100 months

he says why it departs from that

Now much of the time perhaps I

dont know for sure but of course you are

referring to the guideline And if the

guideline is one thing you might do A and if

its another thing you might do B And

certainly you will have to say something

different where the guideline is 100 versus

120 Not certainly but almost certainly

So why isnt that good enough Thats

good enough to say that where the guideline is

two levels lower you know you can get that

advantage because your original sentence was in

some sense based upon the guideline namely

the sense that I just mentioned

MS KOVNER So I think this case is a

-- is a really good example Justice Breyer of

why that doesnt work Youre not going to

know in particular cases what the parties would

have done absent the guidelines

So that you know -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Well I dont know

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 44: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

Official - Subject to Final Review

All I have to know is what the judge would have

done Hes the one who departed and he had to

put his -- you know Id just be -shy

MS KOVNER Right

JUSTICE BREYER -- repeating what I

said

So we know in every sentence like that

there will be words about the applicable

guideline

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE BREYER And much of the time

it will have something to do with the

applicable guideline And why isnt that good

enough

MS KOVNER So Justice Breyer to

take for instance this case there is no

reason to believe I think in this case that

the judge would have rejected the parties plea

agreement if the judge had calculated the

guidelines differently For instance in this

case the particular change to the Sentencing

Guidelines that the -- you know that was

ultimately made had already been proposed The

parties knew about it the judge knew about it

and nobody indicated that that fact -- if that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 45: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

Official - Subject to Final Review

guidelines change had been in effect the

result would have been different

And here I think theres good reason

why the judge would have accepted this plea

agreement which was for a below-guideline

sentence even if the guidelines had been

different because the government was giving up

a mandatory minimum and which the government

could have insisted on a life sentence in this

case

JUSTICE BREYER Suppose we say youre

absolutely right and thats why the word

based upon cannot just refer to these

hypotheticals we know nothing about

Therefore based upon refers to an instance

where the judge made significant use of the

guideline either in his reasoning or in the

reasons that he gave which of course would

throw this case right into the opposite side

that you want But nonetheless it would be a

workable rule and wed say based upon at

least means that

MS KOVNER So I think there are a

few reasons First of all we dont think

respectfully that in the ordinary case its

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 46: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

Official - Subject to Final Review

going to be easy to sort out whether the -- the

-- whether the court was just calculating the

guidelines which Petitioner suggests would not

be enough or was relying -shy

JUSTICE BREYER In a C agreement it

would be because he has to write it down

MS KOVNER I -- I think all he has

to indicate is that there were justifiable

reasons for him to accept the sentence

notwithstanding that -- notwithstanding that

the sentence in a particular case was outside

the guidelines And I think theres some

additional reasons why that approach wouldnt

be a good one The first is the Sentencing

Commissions guidance The Sentencing

Commission has indicated it has to be -- in

order for 3582 relief to be available the

guideline has to have actually been applied at

sentencing

And then I think theres a stare

decisis reason which is the Court you know

whatever -- whatever the merits of the rule in

Freeman and obviously the government took a

slightly broader approach to the extent to

which 3582 denies relief but this is an

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 47: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

Official - Subject to Final Review

opinion of this Court that this plea and other

pleas have been sort of organized around since

the case was decided and thats a case in

which statutory stare decisis principles have

their greatest force So -- Im sorry Your

Honor

JUSTICE GORSUCH No I understand

youd like us to decide what were calling the

Marks question rather than just resolving what

Freeman means

But to what extent is the Marks

problem real outside of the Freeman context I

know Freeman has beset the lower courts with a

lot of difficulty and generated disagreements

But have -- have there been real problems

outside of that context

MS KOVNER So I mean the -- the

courts that have gone against us on the Marks

question have indicated its sort of their -shy

its just their interpretation of Marks so

its the interpretation they would apply in

future -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH But theyve done it

in the context of trying to figure out what

Freeman means If we relieve them of that

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 48: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

Official - Subject to Final Review

confusion how far have we gone to resolving

the problem

MS KOVNER I dont think very far

Your Honor because in any future divided

decision of this Court those courts would go

back to applying the requirement -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH There are a lot of

divided decisions of this Court though

MS KOVNER Thats right

JUSTICE GORSUCH And -- and it

doesnt seem to be a pervasive problem outside

of the Freeman context at least that youve

documented so far And I was just wondering

whether you had any other evidence of problems

outside of the Freeman context

MS KOVNER So I think an additional

circumstance you know some of the amicus

briefs allude to is interpreting this Courts

decision in Rapanos You know we think this

-- this same issue comes up there and you

know the two circuits that have indicated

shared reasoning is necessary I think would

regard this Courts decision in Rapanos as not

having precedential effect And of course as

Your Honor alludes to there are going to be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 49: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Official - Subject to Final Review

you know future divided decisions of this

Court

JUSTICE GORSUCH But are there actual

opinions I guess is -- Im sorry for pursuing

this -shy

MS KOVNER Yes

JUSTICE GORSUCH -- but Ill stop

But -- but are there -- are there any other

actual decisions like we have in the Marks

MS KOVNER So I -shy

JUSTICE GORSUCH In the Freeman

context

MS KOVNER This is often I think

briefed in -- I know there are a lot of cases

discussing this Marks issue in the context of

Rapanos The opinions that I focused on I

think where this has been framed most are the

Freeman cases In part thats because this is

essentially a recent split So Davis is 2016

and thats where the Ninth Circuit sets out its

opinion I think the DC Circuit case it did

arise earlier in one case that was King and I

think that -- which I know obviously involved

interpretation of a different opinion of this

Court

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 50: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 --

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Official - Subject to Final Review

I think Your -- Your Honor is right

that this split is framed most squarely in

terms of Freeman One of the circuits only

arrived to its interpretation of Marks in the

context of Freeman

JUSTICE GINSBURG Dont you think

that -shy

MS KOVNER But those courts have set

out rules that are going to apply in future

cases

JUSTICE GINSBURG Didnt the

commentary thats been referred to Re and the

other one give lots of examples

MS KOVNER I think they -- the -shy

the -- Professor Res brief I take to indicate

JUSTICE GINSBURG Not the brief The

-- the long article

MS KOVNER Yes I take him to have

identified cases where he asserts that this -shy

theres been difficulty applying Marks in the

past so perhaps that supports the idea that

there is benefit to be had from clarifying what

the Marks rule means

JUSTICE GINSBURG It has been said

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 51: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

Official - Subject to Final Review

that -- in one of the briefs that the

government in several cases endorsed this

so-called Russian doll approach Is that true

that the government once did and is the

government giving it up now

MS KOVNER No I mean in -- I know

in the cases interpreting Rapanos the

government has consistently taken a position

weve interpreted here Petitioners I think

cite one of the petitions in -- a petition we

filed in a case called McWane but I -- my

reading of that petition is that its entirely

consistent with our opinion here We dont

suggest -- Im not aware of any filing in which

weve suggested the Marks rule requires shared

reasoning in order for a decision to have

precedential effect

JUSTICE ALITO If we followed the -shy

your predictive approach why should we -shy

could it not be confined to the opinions that

concurred in the judgment Why should we count

the dissents Why -- why not just look at the

-- the -- the ones that concurred in the

judgment

MS KOVNER So I -- I take the Marks

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 52: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

Official - Subject to Final Review

rule -- I think that would be contrary to what

this Court has said and done for about 40 years

where it said you identify the narrowest

opinion concurring in the judgment and then you

treat that as the controlling rule even though

in some cases that opinion aligns with the

dissent and in some cases with the plurality

And we think thats the right rule

Justice Alito because otherwise in every

Marks case the Court would essentially need to

take the case twice once for the cases where

the plurality assigns -- aligns with the

concurrence and once for cases where the

concurrence assigns with the -- aligns with the

dissent And in that case the members of this

Court could issue identical opinions to the

ones they issued in the first case because all

of the opinions have already fleshed out

exactly what rule the justices are applying

but it would need to essentially -- this Court

would need to essentially take the case twice

The rule that was set out in the first case

would depend somewhat arbitrarily on the

vehicle in which the Court initially granted

cert

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 53: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

Official - Subject to Final Review

We dont think theres any need for

the Court to expend its resources in this way

and the effect would be an undesirable one for

purposes of vertical stare decisis where for a

period of time you would have courts not -- not

being bound by what five members of the Court

have indicated is the appropriate rule

JUSTICE KENNEDY And as best you

interpret the Re brief and the Re article is

it your position or would it be your position

that overruling Marks would be disruptive

MS KOVNER I -- I think so Your

Honor I mean the -- the Re article points

out that courts have -- courts of appeals have

relied on Marks quite a lot There are over

400 decisions of courts of appeals applying

Marks to over 100 decisions of this Court over

a 40-year period So we think there are -shy

theres quite a lot of appellate court

jurisprudence thats based on applying Marks to

this Courts decisions So we think it would

be quite disruptive to overrule Marks

But for the you know we -- we

believe Marks is the correct rule for the

additional reason that the principle of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 54: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

Official - Subject to Final Review

vertical stare decisis that it embodies is I

think the -- the appropriate way for lower

courts to adhere to this Courts decision

JUSTICE BREYER When you say that

Marks is fine for the cases that it works with

which are a logical subset fine but it

doesnt deal with every case And we just

recognize it doesnt

And as far as the other cases are

concerned we dont necessarily have to go into

them If we did have to go into them youd

try to pick out something that is not an

oxymoron but its something along the lines of

legal common sense And I -- I -- I -- I dont

know that I can do better than that

MS KOVNER So I mean we agree that

the Court doesnt need to consider or decide

cases that are not before it but we would urge

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court the lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 55: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

Official - Subject to Final Review

Marks

If there are no further questions we

would urge that the judgment be affirmed

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel

Mr Shumsky three minutes

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC SHUMSKY

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MR SHUMSKY Thank you Your Honor

Justice Sotomayor I would like to start with

your hypothetical in the circumstance in which

the prosecutor says the sentence here the

agreement here was based on the guidelines

The lower courts following Freeman

have interpreted the concurring opinion in

Freeman as prohibiting reliance on that And

you can look at a case like United States

versus -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Im not in

disagreement with that But the one thing

youre -- the Solicitor Generals Office said

when a judge rejects a C agreement the parties

are put back to their starting point which

means the government keeps its right to file

the persistent felony certificate or to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 56: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Official - Subject to Final Review

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance any more

MR SHUMSKY Let me -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Doing it the way

the plurality suggests theyre losing that

chance

MR SHUMSKY Justice Sotomayor let

me try and address this as sharply as I can

This is where we started the colloquy at the

beginning of this argument and I think its

critical

The government is not losing the

benefit of any bargain here And it is

certainly not in any greater way than it is for

any other form of plea agreement

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Well youre -shy

MR SHUMSKY When -- when -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR -- turning it into

a B instead of a C is what youre saying

MR SHUMSKY No Because -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR This is like all B

agreements

MR SHUMSKY -- because remember we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 57: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

Official - Subject to Final Review

have other types of C agreements with a range

and the government says those ones are fine

We dont mind giving away the benefit of our

bargain for C agreements with a range

Because there again when Congress in

these narrow circumstances has said the

commission again in narrow circumstances is

applying a -- is applying a change

retroactively under those circumstances the

bargain has changed

What was here is now here And thats

just the same for these agreements

I would emphasize that the record here

shows that the judge the parties and the

probation officer were discussing the

sentencing guidelines at length

This is not just a circumstance in

which they are being alluded to At 32(a) to

36(a) of the record theyre performing a

guidelines calculation What about the three

point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility What about two points for

using a gun

And it makes sense under those

circumstances to send it back to the same

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 58: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

Official - Subject to Final Review

district court who accepted the bargain and who

had to relying on Section 6B12 assess the

bargain That is the critical thing about

6B12

Congress when it enacted

994(a)(2)(E) directed the Commission to put

the judges in the middle of this process The

judges are assessing the agreement to determine

whether it is compliant with the guidelines or

at least compliant enough to be accepted

And so here we have a judge who sat

there and dickered with the parties over the

guidelines And it only makes sense there to

say this is a circumstance in which you are

eligible to seek relief Youre not guaranteed

to get it but were not closing the door

The final point Id like to make on

Freeman Congress did not carve out C-type

agreements It could have It knew how to do

that It did that in 3742 in limiting appeals

But it didnt do that for C-type

agreements when it could have

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Thank you

counsel The case is submitted

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 59: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

Official - Subject to Final Review

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 60: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

59Official - Subject to Final Review

1 1010 [2] 114 32

100 [3] 42311 5217

1103 [1] 581

120 [2] 42112

15 [1] 132

16 [1] 1918

160 [1] 1025

17 [1] 1918

17-155 [1] 34

1B110 [1] 719

2 20 [2] 1326

2016 [1] 4819

2018 [1] 110

27 [1] 110

28 [1] 27

3 3 [1] 24

32(a [1] 5618

35 [1] 723

3553(a [3] 6414 73

3582 [4] 2512 3914 451725

3582(c)(2 [3] 421 522 67

36(a [1] 5619

3742 [1] 5720

4 4-1-4 [1] 3025

4-4-1 [1] 302

40 [2] 1310 512

40-year [1] 5218

400 [1] 5216

5 54 [1] 210

6 6B12 [2] 5724

9 994(a)(2)(E [1] 576

A am [3] 114 32 581

abandon [2] 131720

able [1] 3517

above-entitled [1] 112

absent [3] 813 205 4223

absolute [4] 16121819 3213

absolutely [1] 4412

absolutist [1] 1525

accept [3] 3817 415 459

acceptance [1] 5621

accepted [4] 4020 444 57110

accepts [1] 3813

achieved [1] 359

achieving [1] 3425

actual [4] 204 2522 4839

actually [5] 3716 3915 4024 45

18

add [1] 3423

additional [5] 43 4114 4513 47

16 5225

address [2] 325 5510

adhere [1] 533

adjustment [1] 615

administrability [1] 3919

administrable [1] 401

advantage [1] 4216

affirmed [1] 543

ago [4] 913 111313 136

agree [5] 45 1522 1615 348 53

16

agreed [5] 396 414162224

agreeing [1] 2011

agreement [23] 313 4122 519 6

12 77 3719 384131618 391

40517 411922 4319 445 455

541322 5517 578

agreements [12] 417181925 36

1924 5524 561412 571922

agrees [3] 521 2322 272

ahead [2] 115 229

aid [1] 206

algorithm [1] 2623

aligns [3] 5161214

ALITO [15] 114 13923 14621

25 151118 1711 2625 27815

25 5018 519

allude [1] 4718

alluded [2] 4111 5618

alludes [4] 3920 403 412 4725

alluding [2] 912 145

almost [2] 3624 4212

alone [1] 344

already [2] 4323 5118

alternate [1] 1014

alternative [2] 3921 405

amended [1] 720

Amendment [2] 1612 3623

amicus [3] 148 1918 4717

among [1] 2014

amount [1] 512

another [1] 429

answer [10] 415 517 6224 121

1422 2518 2715 285

anybody [2] 1620 315

anytime [1] 1520

appeals [6] 918 118 1623 5214

16 5720

APPEARANCES [1] 116

appellate [1] 5219

applicable [3] 4124 43813

application [4] 1017 302020 53

25

applied [4] 296 309 3915 4518

applies [2] 2917 3014

apply [7] 64 916 171 1921 46

21 499 5324

applying [12] 88 2315 301517

3512 476 4921 5119 521620

5688

approach [19] 1011416 149 17

6 211113 221223 251014 29

4 3922 417 451324 50319

approaches [1] 318

appropriate [4] 616 712 527 53

2

approved [2] 612 4018

arbitrarily [1] 5123

arent [1] 2220

arguing [1] 148

argument [14] 113 2258 37 13

24 1513 2118 267 2817 2912

3710 547 5512

arise [1] 4822

around [3] 3618 3723 462

arranged [1] 3616

arrived [1] 494

art [1] 3211

article [3] 4918 52913

articulate [2] 165 1710

aside [1] 363

asserts [1] 4920

assess [1] 572

assessing [1] 578

assigns [2] 511214

Assistant [1] 119

attached [1] 2014

attempt [2] 1921 2621

attention [4] 126 287 321617

attorneys [1] 95

Attorneys [1] 92

automatically [1] 186

available [1] 4517

aware [1] 5014

away [1] 563

B B-type [1] 418

back [12] 516 611 715 1225 19

12 243 2511 402 416 476 54

23 5625

background [2] 38823

Bakke [1] 301

balance [2] 2716 2811

bare [3] 255 262324

bargain [8] 47 3615 392 5515

56410 5713

bargained [1] 823

based [14] 313 8121419 914 31

6 381 397 4217 44131521 52

20 5413

basis [1] 621

bears [1] 321

beginning [1] 5512

behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28

18 548

belief [1] 514

believe [2] 4317 5224

believes [1] 3220

below [1] 719

below-guideline [1] 445

benefit [4] 1319 4923 5515 563

beset [1] 4613

best [7] 921 121 20925 21118

528

better [3] 1310 333 5315

between [1] 3823

big [1] 1311

binding [1] 128

bit [4] 5162425 2614

board [1] 416

bore [1] 3924

Both [3] 314 279 3821

bottom [1] 719

bound [2] 122 526

BREYER [21] 2279 327 331013

1620 34161619 4119 422025

4351115 4411 455 53421

brief [6] 621 148 1918 491517

529

briefed [1] 4814

briefing [1] 3711

briefs [2] 4718 501

broad [1] 3116

broader [3] 182 3612 4524

C C-type [7] 313 4171922 519 57

1821

calculated [1] 4319

calculating [1] 452

calculation [1] 5620

Caldwell [1] 184

call [1] 922

called [1] 5011

calling [1] 468

came [1] 112

cannot [2] 719 4413

careful [1] 287

carve [5] 423 162021 2121 57

18

Case [52] 34 6510 919 117 12

25 148 1717 184 213 24923

2718 28323 2919 3025 3113

328 339 35582425 371 3917

23 4115 4219 43161721 4410

1925 4511 4633 482122 50

11 51101115172122 53723

5417 5724 581

case-by-case [1] 620

cases [35] 8617 1625 2022 21

1122 221125 23171819 2415

256 2624 282 299 31311 352

3617 4222 481418 491020 50

27 51671113 535918

categorical [1] 321

categorically [1] 61

categories [1] 425

category [1] 422

causation [1] 320

caused [1] 1823

cert [1] 5125

certain [2] 42 153

certainly [6] 1318 255 421012

12 5516

certificate [4] 44 51012 5425

chance [2] 5548

change [3] 4321 441 568

changed [2] 3914 5610

changes [2] 1321 2524

chaos [5] 2023 21162425 224

charge [1] 93

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - charge

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 61: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

60Official - Subject to Final Review

charges [7] 43 5248 4114 551

1

CHIEF [15] 339 915 106 1126

11 1224 168 285131619 544

5723

child [1] 711

choice [2] 321 3524

Circuit [8] 1210 1920 2120 28

21 3410 362 482021

circuits [1] 265

circuits [5] 2824 341213 4721

493

circumstance [6] 84 4110 4717

5411 5617 5714

circumstances [16] 411 61415

81013 912 134 154 162 247

22 253 5667925

cite [2] 3218 5010

clarification [2] 1319 349

clarify [3] 717 2114 5319

clarifying [1] 4923

clarity [1] 205

clear [4] 1217 222 238 2915

clearer [1] 1623

client [1] 97

clients [1] 3224

close [2] 322 3925

closing [1] 5716

colloquy [1] 5511

combing [2] 388 3922

come [1] 2423

comedies [1] 155

comedy [8] 1414151820 1514

21 332224

comes [4] 76 1225 1615 4720

coming [1] 2523

commentary [1] 4912

commission [4] 4120 4516 567

576

Commissions [3] 391112 4515

common [10] 318 142 21219

3121 347 3656 531422

Communists [1] 1616

competency [1] 1720

completely [6] 1320 1815 2123

24910 262

compliant [2] 57910

concedes [1] 420

conceding [1] 725

concern [1] 2213

concerned [1] 5310

concerns [1] 2821

concluded [1] 1211

concludes [1] 822

conclusion [1] 3215

concurred [3] 1024 502123

concurrence [20] 311 825 1811

231241721222324 241114

16 255 3121 326 3714 5113

14

concurring [6] 1118 1212 1614

2310 514 5415

conditions [1] 416

confined [1] 5020

confusion [7] 18232525 197 26

311 471

Congress [3] 565 57518

connection [2] 322 3925

consider [1] 5317

considerations [1] 3824

considering [3] 723 2914 3812

consistent [4] 94 143 195 50

13

consistently [2] 308 508

constituted [1] 131

Constitution [1] 275

constitutional [3] 27112123

context [8] 46121624 471215

481215 495

continue [1] 201

contrary [8] 156 1715 2215 25

14 2945 3413 511

control [2] 3124 326

controlling [5] 256 2920 30112

515

controls [3] 233 241421

cooperated [1] 79

correct [4] 314 125 5224 5324

counsel [3] 2814 545 5724

count [5] 924 1218 2218 3715

5021

counterpoint [1] 192

counting [5] 923 1020 135 175

236

counting-through [1] 175

counts [2] 1122 217

couple [3] 105 155 1712

course [10] 1116 1324 163 32

1622 3321 3511 426 4418 47

24

COURT [92] 1113 310 48 513 6

311 71623 8571622 917 10

38 1181421 1261820 1314

131524 141 1521 194 20718

215 2261519 2519 261618

27220 2848202325 292569

1316 3081114171922 3220

34112123 35311122325 36

1113 3939 45221 461 4758

48225 51210162024 5226

1719 5317192424 571

courts [8] 1011 1118 156 305

471823 5221 533

courts [26] 1117 1313 1623 19

12 20619 225 252024 2725

286 298 338 3527 367 4613

18 475 498 525141416 533

5414

covered [3] 185813

crazy [1] 3318

create [1] 3121

criterion [1] 317

critical [2] 5513 573

criticize [1] 3119

cross-examination [1] 1724

current [1] 1916

D

DC [5] 191721 2119 4821

Davis [1] 4819

day [2] 3124 326

deal [8] 412 158 311013 3824

25 4117 537

decades [1] 2216

decide [6] 2823 29910 352 468

5317

decided [1] 463

deciding [2] 919 1413

decision [8] 137 19310 47519

23 5016 533

decision-making [1] 207

decisions [7] 2825 478 4819

52161721

decisis [6] 298 351 4521 464

524 531

defendant [4] 46 618 714 3915

Defense [1] 95

defined [1] 520

definition [1] 102

demonstrate [1] 1712

denies [1] 4525

denominator [2] 142 2119

deny [3] 231820 281

depart [1] 4121

departed [1] 432

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 4124 4224

departure [1] 49

depend [2] 2112 5123

depends [1] 1422

describes [1] 417

describing [1] 3012

desirable [1] 385

determination [2] 620 72

determinations [1] 94

determine [6] 49 613 305 404

20 578

determined [1] 393

developed [1] 2913

development [3] 195 2517 262

deviate [1] 79

diagrams [1] 245

dickered [1] 5712

dicta [4] 1118 1610 2218 3521

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 523 3718 3823

different [20] 424 541019 61 7

1 924 103 12721 2112 2614

2721 408 41118 4211 4427

4824

differently [1] 4320

difficulties [1] 174

difficulty [4] 1222 355 4614 49

21

directed [1] 576

directly [1] 258

directs [1] 93

disagree [1] 89

disagreed [1] 1215

disagreement [1] 5420

disagreements [1] 4614

discretion [2] 64 86

discretionary [1] 66

discussing [2] 4815 5615

discussion [1] 269

dismiss [2] 42 552

dismissed [1] 551

dismissing [1] 52

disqualify [1] 618

disruptive [2] 521122

dissent [9] 235192225 241316

257 51715

dissenting [3] 1020 218 3822

dissents [5] 221424 236 2914

5022

district [10] 48 513 6311 716

23 85722 571

districts [1] 375

divided [5] 2824 367 4748 481

dividing [1] 2021

division [1] 363

doctrine [1] 2917

documented [1] 4713

doing [7] 1315 2020 3425 3622

3717 5536

doll [1] 503

dolls [1] 246

done [7] 343 3512 419 4223 43

2 4623 512

door [2] 420 5716

doubt [2] 39810

down [3] 96 1624 456

drawing [1] 416

drop [1] 719

E each [3] 321 202121

earlier [4] 145 244 4011 4822

easy [2] 53 451

effect [9] 317 1311 2415 291 40

17 441 4724 5017 523

efforts [1] 1920

eight [1] 1214

either [1] 4417

Eleventh [1] 1210

eligibility [3] 420 6919

eligible [5] 522 623 715 81 57

15

embodies [1] 531

emphasize [1] 5613

empirically [1] 371

enables [1] 610

enacted [1] 575

end [2] 219 402

endorsed [1] 502

engage [2] 134 1610

enough [8] 412 710 1723 4213

14 4314 454 5710

ensuring [1] 351

entered [1] 406

entirely [1] 5012

entitled [2] 273 2825

equals [2] 2325 2417

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 547

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 4023

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 charges - error

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 62: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

61Official - Subject to Final Review

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 2321 3614 4819

51102021

established [1] 3722

evaluate [1] 2425

even [9] 1016 196 2111 22120

233 2922 446 515

even-handed [1] 194

event [1] 171

everybody [1] 1621

everything [2] 2012 2215

evidence [2] 56 4714

evil [1] 191

exact [1] 132

exactly [4] 625 96 125 5119

example [3] 1411 3115 4220

examples [3] 1712 3710 4913

Except [4] 51 1615 334 3810

exercising [1] 63

exist [1] 2012

expect [1] 3723

expectations [1] 3617

expend [1] 522

exposure [1] 54

extent [5] 2311 354 3724 4524

4611

extreme [1] 912

F fact [5] 1214 158 1916 405 43

25

factors [2] 65 73

facts [3] 2212 2619 358

fair [2] 152 181

familiar [1] 2924

far [7] 1522 165 1710 471313

539

favorable [1] 4117

favored [3] 301618 3510

feel [1] 2710

felony [3] 44 59 5425

few [2] 399 4424

fewer [1] 2318

figure [3] 109 418 4624

file [1] 5424

filed [1] 5011

filing [2] 44 5014

final [1] 5717

fine [5] 331422 5356 562

first [19] 3423 416 517 613 97

15 10716 1323 1612 2117 29

12 3517 3910 4424 4514 5117

22

first-best [1] 2010

fit [1] 246

five [9] 2010 214101112 2325

2417 3218 526

flatly [1] 294

fleshed [1] 5118

floor [1] 721

focused [1] 4816

focuses [1] 107

follow [2] 1211 193

followed [1] 5018

following [4] 313 2615 3114 54

14

force [3] 2311 379 465

Ford [1] 1718

foreign [1] 1515

form [2] 321 5517

four [6] 1123 141316 1513 311

396

framed [2] 4817 492

frankly [1] 1819

free [1] 281

Freeman [36] 31216 825 1212

31151920 3518 36391318

374142224 3822122 3920

403 412 4523 4610121325

471215 481118 4935 5414

16 5718

French [6] 141519 15516 3314

22

full [1] 1719

fundamental [1] 2515

fundamentally [1] 4025

further [3] 2621 3424 542

future [4] 4622 474 481 499

G Gall [2] 8717

gave [1] 4418

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 5421

generally [1] 298

generated [1] 4614

gets [1] 243

GINSBURG [9] 1120 12416 29

22 3014 496111725

give [6] 44 121 1411 218 2712

4913

given [4] 411 2310 3125 4113

giving [7] 41 512 2018 2415 44

7 505 563

GORSUCH [7] 46723 47710 48

3711

got [1] 1620

gotten [1] 3814

government [27] 41111923 56

111421 76 191 202425 2617

371120 411216 4478 4523

502458 5424 5514 562

governments [4] 56 1014 2510

13

grant [2] 231618

granted [1] 5124

granting [1] 2411

great [3] 1588 3314

greater [1] 5516

greatest [1] 465

ground [8] 2617 3025 31248

1923 361

grounds [1] 2721

groups [1] 2710

guarantee [1] 69

guaranteed [1] 5715

guess [3] 2016 2124 484

guidance [11] 182223 191317

2019 33910 3424 391112 45

15

guideline [14] 410 78 4023 41

25 42178111417 43913 44

17 4518

guidelines [35] 31421 520 720

88912152024 95814 3623

371318 38115 39131424 40

7 4117 4223 432022 4416 45

312 5413 561620 57913

guiding [1] 3816

gun [1] 5623

H hallmarks [1] 1721

hand [1] 2919

happen [2] 923 325

happened [1] 1911

happens [3] 172 276 3916

hard [1] 811

hear [1] 33

help [1] 334

helpful [1] 3410

historical [1] 203

holding [5] 1081112 1810 22

19

holdings [4] 144 2217 2420 25

16

Holiday [1] 3323

Honor [18] 417 718 82 178 239

307 3418 3523 369 37221 41

11 466 47425 491 5213 549

Honors [7] 3612 38221 39519

403 412

hoping [1] 2522

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 3323

hundreds [1] 2216

hypothetical [3] 1222 1625 54

11

hypotheticals [1] 4414

I idea [4] 1922 224 2615 4922

identical [1] 5116

identically [1] 131

identified [1] 4920

identify [2] 2217 513

identifying [2] 2711 356

ignore [1] 3515

ill [1] 711

illogical [1] 149

illustration [1] 2924

imagine [2] 725 1224

imperfect [1] 1714

impermissible [1] 317

import [1] 2721

importance [1] 2420

important [2] 46 919

impose [1] 394

in-between [1] 3116

incentivizing [1] 3817

included [1] 182

including [1] 3617

incoherent [2] 3155

incorporate [1] 376

indeed [2] 822 913

indicate [2] 458 4915

indicated [7] 323 395 4325 45

16 4619 4721 527

indicates [1] 3913

indicating [1] 2419

initially [1] 5124

innumerable [1] 1919

inquiry [2] 3519 401

insisted [1] 449

insofar [1] 2311

instance [6] 84 2117 4113 43

1620 4415

instead [3] 1225 2413 5521

interesting [1] 147

interpret [2] 346 529

interpretation [8] 181112 2822

3610 462021 4824 494

interpreted [4] 1718 3620 509

5415

interpreting [2] 4718 507

intolerable [1] 3123

invites [1] 226

involved [1] 4823

isnt [5] 199 2025 2112 4213 43

13

issue [12] 325 226 2620 2713

23 3210 3671314 4720 4815

5116

issued [1] 5117

issues [1] 2521

itself [4] 316 1020 3113 369

J job [1] 1316

join [2] 3225

joins [2] 235 2525

judge [26] 48 6311 918 3717

3812121717 4041819 4148

82021 431181924 44416 54

22 5614 5711

judges [3] 3225 5778

judgment [14] 510 10813 111

121 2221 231215 291819 50

2124 514 543

judgments [1] 1025

jurisprudence [2] 1312 5220

Justice [119] 120 33924 414 5

115 617 7524 915 106 1124

61120 124131624 136923

1462125 151118 168 1711

21 18591724 19152325 208

211521 2227922 2314 2422

825 25292425 2611425 278

1525 286131619 292225 304

1323 327 3310131620 3416

1619 3514 3621 377 3810 40

101622 4119 422025 43511

15 4411 455 46723 47710 48

3711 496111725 5018 519

528 53421 5441019 556918

2023 5723

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 ESQ - Justice

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 63: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

62Official - Subject to Final Review

Justices [16] 112324 123714 look [12] 97 11151718 1717 20 movement [1] 721 13

1315 152024 163324 17819 25 213 327 386 3910 5022 54 movie [2] 1413 3314 one [28] 325 612 1213 136 21

214 396 5119 17 moving [1] 524 18 2224 27912 284 291723

justifiable [2] 4125 458 looking [2] 99 142 Ms [38] 281619 307 3112 337 3016 34922 35617 3618 386

justified [1] 410 losing [2] 55714 12 34581821 3522 3625 37 428 432 4514 4822 49313 50

justifies [1] 512 loss [1] 513 21 3820 40152124 4219 434 110 523 5420

K lot [5] 4614 477 4814 521519

lots [2] 2319 4913

1015 4423 457 4617 473916

4861013 4981419 50625 52

ones [4] 3225 5023 5117 562

only [15] 522 68 81523 1010 13 KAGAN [14] 192325 208 2115 lower [23] 712 111417 12618 12 531622 7 2310 291523 3016 3414 36 21 22322 2314 242825 2529 1313 1912 206 225 252024 much [5] 721 1917 2317 425 43 6 3913 493 5713 3023 2618 2725 286 298 338 352 11 open [1] 420

keep [1] 412 367 4215 4613 53224 5414 multiple [2] 320 358 opinion [36] 11922 1212 1614 keeps [1] 5424

KENNEDY [1] 528 M must [1] 3318

mystery [2] 1416 1517

231012 292023 3019121515

1720 31161617 32213 356 kept [1] 55

key [2] 1519 3222

made [4] 620 1910 4323 4416

Madison [1] 3214 N 3612 3822122 39520 403 41

2 461 482124 5013 5146 54 kind [4] 135 2013 2611 409 main [1] 2911 namely [2] 319 4217 15 kinds [2] 376 411 majority [13] 102 204 2520 272 narrow [3] 3117 5667 opinions [17] 315 11151925 22 King [2] 2120 4822 419 289 30111922 351018 narrowest [4] 181019 356 513 12 2619 288 29218 311318 knowing [1] 4022 375 nearly [2] 131 159 358 48416 5020 511618 knowledge [1] 375 mandatory [2] 4113 448 necessarily [4] 1815 191 269 opportunity [1] 2424 KOVNER [41] 119 26 281617 manner [1] 352 5310 opposite [1] 4419 19 307 3112 33712 345818 Manual [1] 92 necessary [7] 1012 111 2220 option [1] 2010 21 3522 3625 3721 3820 4015 many [3] 46 231718 231214 3215 4722 oral [5] 112 225 37 2817 2124 4219 4341015 4423 45 Marbury [1] 3214 need [10] 172324 338 3414 365 order [2] 4517 5016 7 4617 473916 4861013 498 March [1] 110 51102021 521 5317 ordinarily [6] 610 81419 911 10 1419 50625 5212 531622 Marks [54] 317 916 10791720 negotiate [1] 3723 10 3112

L 2223 1391725 1869121922 negotiations [1] 388 ordinary [2] 811 4425

land [1] 1213

language [2] 1516 1818

Laughter [4] 336151925

law [8] 1213 1310 196 2517 26

2 321112 342

lawyers [1] 3224

lays [1] 1919

leads [2] 301618

1921 2822 2956131721 309

333 344222325 351219 361

4 469111820 48915 49421

24 501525 5110 5211151720

2224 53525 541

matter [4] 112 810 117 3219

McWane [1] 5011

mean [15] 1511 208 22413 30

24 33111416 341 3520 4016

nested [3] 2123 24910

never [2] 27813

nevertheless [1] 3120

next [1] 2423

Nichols [1] 142

nine [1] 1412

Ninth [1] 4820

nobody [3] 3220 335 4325

none [1] 303

organized [1] 462

original [2] 412 4216

other [24] 424 65 71 911 101

1111 1610 202121 267 2710

32224 3413 39618 411 461

4714 488 4913 539 5517 561

others [1] 303

otherwise [1] 519

out [20] 423 923 109 1222 1620learn [1] 3212

least [9] 153 166 171215 196

2117 4422 4712 5710

Leave [1] 344

led [1] 2918

left [1] 2618

legal [1] 5314

legally [1] 161

length [1] 5616

less [4] 1616 1722 2719

lesser [1] 182

level [1] 196

levels [1] 4215

life [1] 449

4617 506 5213 5316

meaning [4] 811 189 191 382

meaningful [1] 2610

means [8] 169 188 417 4422 46

1025 4924 5424

member [1] 3017

members [6] 1024 30101122

5115 526

mentioned [1] 4218

merits [2] 2622 4522

middle [9] 2617 30224 31248

1923 577

might [9] 1220 1410 1514 2423

2511 302324 4289

nonetheless [1] 4420

nor [2] 211717

norm [1] 204

norms [1] 144

nose [1] 135

note [1] 3822

nothing [3] 151 1910 4414

notions [1] 2515

nots [1] 306

notwithstanding [3] 1214 4510

10

number [1] 523

O

21 1919 2019 2121 2521 418

451 4624 4820 499 511822

5214 5312 5718

outside [5] 4511 461216 4711

15

over [9] 8161616 1523 3225 52

151717 5712

overlap [2] 1815 245

overrule [1] 5222

overruling [1] 5211

own [2] 201920

oxymoron [1] 5313

P light [1] 3712 mind [2] 2525 563 ODell [1] 1025 PAGE [2] 22 1025 likely [1] 265 minimum [2] 4113 448 objections [2] 219 2912 pages [1] 1917 limited [1] 2916 minority [1] 122 obviously [3] 3611 4523 4823 paired [1] 257 limiting [1] 5720 minutes [1] 546 occasioned [1] 265 Palmer [1] 2120 LINDSEY [1] 13 misunderstood [1] 83 occur [1] 206 Panetti [1] 1718 lines [1] 5313 Molina-Martinez [1] 818 occurs [1] 823 paper [1] 1919 literal [1] 1812 moment [5] 913 111313 2512 offender [1] 59 part [14] 51718 62 1819 2219 little [1] 516 18 Office [1] 5421 265 32111122 372 406 4133 live [1] 1724 months [2] 4223 officer [1] 5615 4818 logical [11] 1325 14919 15712 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 226 4112 4813 particular [8] 421 117 273 355 1713 2118 2225 231 247 536 most [6] 818 918 143 372 4817 okay [1] 418 3923 4222 4321 4511

long [1] 4918 492 older [1] 203 particularly [1] 1516 long-standing [1] 319 move [1] 524 once [5] 2615 3722 504 5111 parties [17] 91 361416 372325

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justices - parties

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 64: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

63Official - Subject to Final Review

389 392 40613 41469 4222

4324 5422 5614 5712

parties [2] 387 4318

parts [1] 415

party [1] 273

passed [2] 1323

past [1] 4922

pay [4] 126 287 321617

people [6] 141222 152021 16

18 2011

percolate [1] 225

percolation [1] 205

performing [1] 5619

Perhaps [5] 83 1318 2423 425

4922

period [2] 52518

persistent [3] 44 59 5425

persuasiveness [1] 266

pervasive [1] 4711

petition [3] 3516 501012

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

11 453 548

Petitioners [2] 3921 417

Petitioners [1] 509

petitions [1] 5010

Peugh [1] 817

Philadelphia [1] 3317

phrased [1] 4011

pick [2] 2017 5312

picked [1] 713

picking [3] 2014 2917 309

place [2] 613 386

player [1] 3811

plea [11] 3619 3719 38415 40

25 4135 4318 444 461 5517

plea-bargaining [1] 94

pleas [2] 411 462

please [3] 310 1925 2820

plug [1] 2622

plurality [17] 311 619 1719 183

10 232516 2412 31202224

323 3811 51712 557

pluralitys [1] 379

plus [2] 2324 2416

point [6] 178 261318 5423 56

21 5717

points [4] 1222 1816 5213 5622

policy [1] 89

posed [1] 916

position [11] 1023 2116 239 30

3 31324 3612 379 508 5210

10

positions [2] 3025 314

possible [1] 318

post-Booker [2] 8617

potentially [1] 524

Powell [2] 1721 3222

Powells [1] 301

practical [2] 1136

precedent [11] 101011 1122 12

9 144 2218 2516 27919 2810

305

precedential [4] 317 291 4724

5017

precedents [3] 1314 156 2217

precisely [1] 2518

predicated [2] 73 1019

predict [1] 1219

predictability [1] 198

predictable [1] 195

predictive [1] 5019

prerogative [2] 164 179

presumption [1] 153

pretend [1] 1121

pretty [3] 1321 181 2515

principle [2] 297 5225

principles [2] 319 464

privileging [1] 2320

probably [1] 1822

probation [1] 5615

problem [6] 1513 1820 2013 46

12 47211

problematic [1] 174

problems [3] 2015 4615 4714

proceedings [1] 1720

process [1] 577

Professor [7] 1477 157 1716

1821 1915 4915

profound [1] 1321

prohibiting [1] 5416

proposed [2] 4323 552

proposing [1] 423

prosecute [2] 45 551

prosecutor [4] 3716 381316 54

12

prosecutors [3] 93 3622 373

provide [2] 204 3424

provided [3] 1822 3619 3710

provides [1] 275

providing [1] 1917

provision [2] 27412

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 3224

pure [1] 3521

purports [1] 1017

purposes [1] 524

pursuing [1] 484

push [1] 516

put [7] 825 1113 141 2120 433

5423 576

puts [1] 2617

putting [1] 384

puzzle [1] 1519

Q qualifies [1] 1011

question [30] 325 415 638 83

916 1114 128 132 208 2211

243 25912 2711520 289 338

351618 364510 378 401112

13 46919

questions [3] 3515 4112 542

quibble [1] 223

quick [1] 271

quintessential [1] 2718

quite [6] 1021 133 2214 5215

1922

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2817

raised [1] 2911

range [8] 410 52024 720 4125

421 5614

Rapanos [4] 471923 4816 507

rather [6] 523 1516 215 312 38

7 469

Re [10] 147 157 1716 1821 199

2118 4912 529913

Res [2] 1915 4915

reach [5] 103 138 2519 351819

reaching [1] 2413

read [4] 621 76 1125 3213

reading [2] 715 5012

real [5] 1912 3321 3823 461215

really [7] 2014 3317 366 4012

1319 4220

reason [10] 3013 317 32910 36

8 4115 4317 443 4521 5225

reasoning [14] 316 1012 1215

1814 2011 21212 293 3021

365 4417 4722 5016 5322

reasons [10] 711 2419 3919 41

2325 423 441824 45913

REBUTTAL [2] 28 547

recent [1] 4819

recently [1] 818

recognize [1] 538

recognized [2] 312 3819

recommending [1] 78

reconsideration [1] 716

record [3] 3923 561319

reduction [1] 5621

refer [1] 4413

referred [1] 4912

referring [1] 427

refers [1] 4415

refine [1] 1325

refinement [1] 1320

regard [1] 4723

rejected [1] 4318

rejecting [1] 2823

rejects [1] 5422

relates [1] 369

relatively [2] 53 912

reliance [3] 321 2419 5416

relied [1] 5215

relief [15] 421 522 6710 2316

181920 2411 2735 281 4517

25 5715

relies [2] 221423

relieve [1] 4625

relying [2] 454 572

Remember [2] 68 5525

repeating [1] 435

representation [2] 3720 3818

request [1] 66

require [1] 1719

requirement [2] 476 5320

requires [4] 1318 29814 5015

reserve [2] 2716 2811

resolve [6] 2022 2621 3411 35

2425 3910

resolved [3] 271323 3613

resolving [3] 2720 469 471

resources [1] 522

respectfully [1] 4425

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2818

responsibility [1] 5622

restraints [1] 1613

result [12] 104 2315 2413 2535

22 301618 3121 35910 442

resulted [1] 1920

results [4] 213 2623 3414 366

retroactively [1] 569

return [1] 203

reversal [2] 102 119

reversed [1] 920

road [1] 1624

ROBERTS [9] 33 915 1126 16

8 281316 544 5723

romantic [8] 1414151820 154

1421 3324

rule [23] 17110 1921 204 2822

3125 321 34325 3619 37424

4421 4522 4924 5015 51158

1922 52724

rules [3] 1714 3213 499

run [2] 2619 357

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1015

running [1] 2211

Russian [2] 246 503

S same [11] 61125 96 1116 1325

2419 292 4720 561225

sat [1] 5711

saying [8] 75 1525 1611 1719

22 2321 2414 5521

says [16] 77 857 1021 1614 18

9 192 2025 3712 3811 4120

22 4224 5412 562

scenario [1] 81

scenarios [1] 622

school [1] 3212

science [1] 3211

second [7] 518 62 1019 209 21

1 321 368

second-best [1] 2113

secondary [1] 2213

Section [1] 572

see [20] 811 1123 1413141516

1820 151415172124 3221 33

172124 359 3923 5321

seek [1] 5715

seem [2] 314 4711

seems [3] 9182025

seen [2] 53 374

send [1] 5625

sending [1] 1911

sense [14] 72 815 1018 1589

166 2916 3114 347 421718

5314 5624 5713

sensible [2] 143 3223

sentence [23] 31222 511 7812

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 parties - sentence

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years

Page 65: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES€¦ · But the persistent felony offender certificate is a different judgment, which is I, the government, think that a sentence of X amount justifies

64Official - Subject to Final Review

1318 8121423 381 3934725

4124 4216 437 4469 45911

5412

sentenced [1] 3916

sentences [3] 521 819 913

sentencing [10] 57 72 3712 39

1112 4321 45141519 5616

separate [1] 291

separately [1] 1722

serious [1] 1512

set [3] 2122 498 5122

sets [1] 4820

several [1] 502

shadow [1] 824

share [1] 292

shared [3] 3414 4722 5015

sharply [2] 1215 5510

shouldnt [3] 910 1616 3819

show [1] 3323

shows [1] 5614

SHUMSKY [48] 117 239 3679

24 414 515 624 717 82 105

1110 124 1323 1421 15218

177 18716 19142324 202 21

14 22281022 238 24118 254

2613 27714 28315 54679 55

59192225

side [2] 322 4419

sides [1] 267

significant [2] 1715 4416

similar [1] 111

simply [5] 722 1211 178 1924

202

since [1] 462

single [1] 304

sit [1] 96

situation [4] 917 1814 1916 27

6

situations [1] 1813

slightly [2] 1221 4524

so-called [1] 503

Solicitor [2] 119 5421

solution [2] 201718

someone [4] 45 622 81 1611

Sometimes [7] 4235 1524 22

24 241112

split [10] 193 263467 2821 34

10 362 4819 492

splits [2] 1920 234

splitting [1] 2020

squarely [1] 492

stare [6] 297 351 4520 464 524

531

start [2] 91 5410

started [1] 5511

starting [1] 5423

STATES [6] 11614 35 92 5417

statutory [2] 3610 464

stifles [1] 269

still [4] 516 715 1911 3720

stop [3] 252021 487

Story [1] 3318

straightforward [1] 5325

strange [2] 133 2722

strength [3] 55 1820 1914

strongly [1] 2710

stunt [1] 2517

stunted [1] 262

subject [2] 101 119

submitted [2] 5724 582

subscribed [1] 3010

subsequent [1] 3617

subset [10] 141919 1512 1713

2119 2225 231 247 536

subsets [1] 157

substance [1] 378

substantial [1] 710

suddenly [1] 342

sufficiently [1] 3924

suggest [1] 5014

suggested [1] 5015

suggesting [1] 1622

suggests [3] 264 453 557

support [1] 1013

supported [1] 3021

supports [1] 4922

suppose [5] 114 1425 271 33

22 4411

SUPREME [4] 1113 1219 215

surely [4] 2219 2846 3916

surprising [2] 821 910

T

took [3] 303 3611 4523

transcript [1] 76

treat [2] 2824 515

treating [2] 291920

trial [1] 1721

true [6] 418 233 2916 3023 31

18 503

try [4] 2110 2511 5312 5510

trying [4] 109 2520 404 4624

Tuesday [1] 110

turn [3] 2115 2211 2511

turning [1] 5520

twice [2] 511121

two [18] 31217 415 625 71 11

24 141418 1520 1816 279 28

24 2911 3412 3514 4215 4721

5622

two-thirds [1] 3214

types [1] 561

U ultimate [1] 207

ultimately [3] 3825 391 4323

umbrella [1] 319

unable [1] 2519

unanimous [1] 3220

under [25] 31718 421 522 67

13 761418 84610 109 134

1536 161 1811 199 24621 37

14 419 56924

undercuts [1] 297

underlying [2] 1919 364

understand [1] 467

understanding [5] 167 3618 37

325 387

understood [2] 131213

undesirable [1] 523

UNITED [7] 11613 3518 92 54

17

unless [2] 279 291

up [12] 41411 51213 1225 24

24 3814 4113 447 4720 505

urge [4] 3525 393 5318 543

using [2] 85 5623

utility [1] 1715

utterly [1] 314

218 2220

W waiver [1] 3623

waivers [1] 376

walking [1] 922

wanted [3] 183 3245

wants [2] 3423 3524

Washington [3] 191720

way [25] 41724 61 921 111217

1314 143 167 2022 2123 23

23 261015 2712 299 309 351

401125 522 532 553616

ways [3] 312 625 71

whatever [5] 711 922 1821 45

2222

Whereupon [1] 581

whether [12] 49 613 1010 128

165 2523 359 3923 4512 47

14 579

will [13] 524 64 722 814 913 31

13 334 401213 4121 4210 43

812

wins [1] 2323

wise [4] 111517 126 287

within [3] 182 38114

without [2] 122 1912

witnesses [1] 1725

wonder [3] 917 173 2016

wondering [1] 4713

word [1] 4412

words [2] 1610 438

work [1] 4221

workable [1] 4421

works [1] 535

world [1] 209

worlds [1] 319

worse [1] 1310

worst [1] 318

write [6] 3289 332 343 4123 45

6

writing [3] 118 1722 4123

wrote [1] 147

Y years [7] 1323610 2216 2925

512 somewhat [1] 5123

sorry [7] 83 169 1925 2210 261

465 484

sort [14] 419 91123 175 2521

3115 368 3872225 3918 451

46219

sorts [1] 3110

SOTOMAYOR [29] 324 414 51

15 617 7524 18591724 1915

242 26114 3514 3621 377 38

10 40101622 541019 556918

2023

sounds [1] 2023

speaks [1] 1025

Spears [1] 87

specific [1] 392

specifically [1] 1021

splinters [1] 2616

talks [1] 1023

term [1] 812

terms [2] 111 493

test [2] 141 199

theoretical [1] 219

theres [23] 66 72025 1512 16

18 197 263 271 3115 349 355

363 381123 398 4115 443 45

1220 4921 52119 5319

thereafter [1] 3212

Therefore [1] 4415

theyve [2] 343 4623

third [1] 3516

though [4] 117 2922 478 515

three [2] 546 5620

throw [1] 4419

together [1] 2523

V valuable [1] 412

various [1] 218

vast [1] 375

vehicle [1] 5124

Venn [1] 245

version [2] 1823

versus [5] 34 2120 3214 4211

5418

vertical [4] 297 3425 524 531

view [8] 1423 1525 16512 1915

266 2824 3223

views [1] 3413

vote [4] 1213 212425 324

vote-counting [1] 2623

voted [1] 3120

votes [7] 924 1020 111 12719

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sentence - years