Opinion ID: 2788751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Safety-Valve Relief and Resentencing

Text: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1), we remand for “further sentencing proceedings” if we conclude that a district court erred in imposing a sentence. Under § 3742(g), “[a] district court to which a case is remanded pursuant to subsection (f)(1) . . . shall resentence a defendant in accordance with section 3553 and with such instructions as may have been given by the court of appeals. . . .” Nothing suggests that a district court may pick and choose what parts of § 3553 to apply at resentencing. Because the safety-valve provision is found within § 3553, I conclude that a district court must consider safety-valve eligibility at any resentencing if a defendant seeks it.1 See United States v. Verners, 103 1 Consistently with this view, I read § 3553(f)’s requirement that district courts consider safety-valve relief after the five listed showings “at sentencing” to mean at the F.3d 108, 110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996) (finding that safety-valve relief under USSG § 5C1.2 “is not discretionary; it requires a departure from the minimum sentence on finding that certain conditions are met.”).