Pulsifer v. U.S.

Dmitriy Smirnov

October 2, 2024

White Collar Crime

Pulsifer v. U.S.

Recently, in Pulsifer v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the safety valve provision under the First Step Act. The safety valve is designed to offer relief to first-time or low-level offenders by allowing the court to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum, assuming the defendant has a limited criminal history and did not use violence or firearms during the offense. Pulsifer hinged on how courts should interpret the word “and” in the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which provides relief from mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenders. The Court ruled that defendants are eligible for the safety valve unless all three disqualifying factors (related to criminal history points) are present. This outcome provides an important clarification that significantly broadens access to sentencing relief for individuals with limited criminal histories. 

Statutory Text of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) 

The safety valve provision under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), as amended by the First Step Act, allows certain nonviolent drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. The law applies when specific conditions are met, allowing the court to impose a sentence without regard to statutory minimums.

Here is the relevant text:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an offense under section 401, 404, or 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 844, 846), or section 1010 or 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960, 963), the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission … if the court finds that the defendant does not meet the criteria in any of the following subparagraphs—”

It goes on to list five criteria that, if satisfied, disqualify the defendant from avoiding mandatory minimums. The key part of the safety valve eligibility is based on the defendant’s criminal history. To qualify for the safety valve, the defendant cannot meet any of the following three disqualifying factors:

      1.    More than 4 criminal history points: Criminal history points are assigned based on prior convictions, and accumulating more than four points disqualifies the defendant from safety valve relief.

      2.    A prior 3-point offense: A 3-point offense refers to any conviction that results in a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year and one month (e.g., felonies).

      3.    A prior 2-point violent offense: This refers to prior convictions that involve violence or a violent felony.

If a defendant has any of these three characteristics, they are not eligible for the safety valve relief under § 3553(f).  In Pulsifer, the Supreme Court ruled on the precise interpretation of these disqualifying factors. The decision revolved around whether a defendant could still be eligible for safety valve relief if only one of these conditions applied, or whether all three disqualifiers had to be present to disqualify a defendant. The Court sided with the defense, ruling that a defendant is eligible unless all three conditions are met.

The Pulsifer decision exemplifies the complexity of criminal sentencing and statutory interpretation. A skilled attorney can effectively argue nuances like these to ensure a defendant receives the fairest sentence possible. Without competent counsel, a defendant could easily be subject to harsher mandatory minimum sentences even when legal opportunities for leniency exist. Anyone facing federal drug charges or any criminal case should consider hiring the lawyers at Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC who understand the intricacies of sentencing laws and how to navigate them effectively for the benefit of their clients.