+ All Categories
Home > Documents > SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks,...

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks,...

Date post: 18-Aug-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
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
Transcript
Page 1: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

categories of agreements This -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I -- 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 so -- Justice

Sotomayor let me push back a little bit still

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Okay

MR SHUMSKY -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 2: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

categories of agreements This -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I -- 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 so -- Justice

Sotomayor let me push back a little bit still

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Okay

MR SHUMSKY -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 3: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

categories of agreements This -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I -- 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 so -- Justice

Sotomayor let me push back a little bit still

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Okay

MR SHUMSKY -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 4: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

categories of agreements This -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I -- 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 so -- Justice

Sotomayor let me push back a little bit still

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Okay

MR SHUMSKY -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 5: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

categories of agreements This -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I -- 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 so -- Justice

Sotomayor let me push back a little bit still

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Okay

MR SHUMSKY -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 6: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

categories of agreements This -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Except that -shy

lets take -- dismissing charges I -- 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 so -- Justice

Sotomayor let me push back a little bit still

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR Okay

MR SHUMSKY -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 7: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 8: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

would not be eligible

MR SHUMSKY Let me answer again in

two ways and again maybe in exactly the same

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 9: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

district court considering all of 35 -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR So are you

conceding theres no -- you cant imagine a

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 10: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 11: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 theres 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 12: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

Marks talks about the position taken

by those members who concurred in the

judgments And ODell at page 160 speaks in

similar terms votes necessary to the judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS But as a

practical -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we -shy

no you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 13: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

can say All right we see four justices

thought this two justices thought that and

were going to read those opinions and then

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 could 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 14: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

this

Mr Chief Justice if you imagine

instead of a case that comes right back up to a

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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 15: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

MR SHUMSKY Justice Alito our first

argument of course is that the Court should

refine Marks And we think that the logical

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 16: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

say what their view about that is And the

just -shy

JUSTICE ALITO Well suppose we know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 17: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

with that thing over there

And so sometimes we see justices

saying I take an absolutist view and anything

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 -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Well that -shy

MR SHUMSKY -- as a way of

understanding -shy

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Im -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 18: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 it 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 19: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 20: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 21: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

continue -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 22: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 23: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

cases or even in some of these cases

MR SHUMSKY So to be clear Justice

Kagan and I -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 24: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 to -- or 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 25: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

concurrence youre essentially saying that

when the concurrence agrees with the dissent

the concurrence wins which I take it is a way

-- is -- is -- is because the concurrence plus

the dissent equals five

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 26: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 27: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 28: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 Well can I just ask

you 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 29: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 30: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 I take Petitioner to raise 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 31: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 32: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 if --in a 4-1-4 case

where 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 33: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 34: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 -- the clients the

other judges are the ones who tell us that

over 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

MS KOVNER Yes So -shy

JUSTICE BREYER 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)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 35: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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)

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 is -shy

JUSTICE BREYER You say theyre

wrong

MS KOVNER Thats right Your Honor

JUSTICE BREYER And then they say

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 36: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 37: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

on the Marks ground because that is where there

is a circuit split

Theres no division on Freeman aside

from just a 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 38: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

are going to be interpreted

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR As -- 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

actually dont 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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 39: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 the -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 40: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

Ultimately in a (C) agreement you

know the parties bargain for a specific

determinate 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 41: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 42: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 43: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 guidelines

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 44: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

-- 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 No I dont know

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 45: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 the

-- if that 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 -shy

plea agreement which was for a

below-guidelines sentence even if the

guidelines had been different because the

government was giving up a mandatory minimum in

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 46: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 47: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 stare -- statutory stare decisis

principles have their greatest force So -shy

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 48: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 And if we relieve them of that

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 -- an

additional circumstance you know some of the

amicus briefs allude to is interpreting this

Courts decision in Rapanos You know 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

48

Official

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 49: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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 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 -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 50: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

an opinion -- interpretation of a different

opinion of this Court

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 51: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 52: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 the 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 53: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 54: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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 dont -- 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 55: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

the Court to clarify that theres no

requirement of -shy

JUSTICE BREYER Yeah I see

MS KOVNER -- of common reasoning

And you know to go on and say in this case

the court -- lower court was correct to apply

Marks to the straightforward application of

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 Id 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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 56: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

versus Dixon -shy

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR I -- 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

prosecute the dismissed charges or the charges

it proposed to dismiss

In doing it this way they dont get

that chance anymore

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 57: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

guide -- 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 theyre being alluded to At 32a to 36a

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 58: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

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

Heritage Reporting Corporation

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 59: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

1

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

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

(Whereupon at 1103 am the case

was submitted)

Heritage Reporting Corporation

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 60: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

59Official

1 23 537

address [2] 325 5518

19 299 403 4113 4520 465 50

925

better [3] 1313 338 5322

between [1] 394 1010 [2] 114 32 adhere [1] 5310 approaches [1] 318 big [1] 1314 100 [3] 42917 5224 adjustment [1] 619 appropriate [4] 619 715 5214 binding [1] 1211 1103 [1] 586 administrability [1] 3925 539 bit [4] 517 633 2619 120 [2] 42718 administrable [1] 407 approved [2] 616 4024 board [1] 4112 15 [1] 135 advantage [1] 4222 arbitrarily [1] 525 bore [1] 405 16 [1] 1923 affirmed [1] 5410 arent [1] 2225 Both [3] 314 2714 392 160 [1] 113 ago [4] 916 111616 139 arguing [1] 1411 bottom [1] 722 17 [1] 1923 agree [5] 45 1525 1620 3414 53 argument [14] 113 2258 37 14 bound [2] 125 5213 17-155 [1] 34 23 2 1516 2123 2612 2822 2918 BREYER [22] 221214 3212 33 1B110 [1] 722 agreed [5] 3912 411022 4235 3716 5414 5520 15171922 3417122225 4125

2 agreeing [1] 2016 arise [1] 493 4316111721 4417 4511 53

20 [2] 1359 agreement [23] 313 4123 523 6 around [3] 3624 384 468 11 543

2016 [1] 4825 16 710 3725 3810192224 39 arranged [1] 3622 brief [6] 624 1411 1923 492123

2018 [1] 110 7 401123 4125 423 4325 44 arrived [1] 4910 5216

27 [1] 110 11 4511 5420 55525 5714 art [1] 3216 briefed [1] 4820

28 [1] 27 agreements [12] 4181920 51

3625 375 56791219 5725 58

article [3] 4924 521620

articulate [2] 168 1715

briefing [1] 3717

briefs [2] 4724 507 3 3 aside [1] 369 broad [1] 3121

3 [1] 24 agrees [3] 525 242 277 asserts [1] 501 broader [3] 188 3618 465

32a [1] 5625 ahead [2] 118 2214 assess [1] 578 C 35 [1] 81 aid [1] 2011 assessing [1] 5714

3553(a [3] 6818 76 algorithm [1] 273 assigns [2] 511820 C-type [7] 313 4182023 523 57

3582 [4] 2517 3920 4523 466 aligns [3] 51121820 Assistant [1] 119 24 582

3582(c)(2 [3] 422 6111 ALITO [15] 117 1312 141924 attached [1] 2019 calculated [1] 4325

36a [1] 5625 1531421 1717 2751320 285 attempt [2] 201 271 calculating [1] 458

3742 [1] 581 5024 5115 attention [4] 129 2812 322122 calculation [1] 572

4 allude [1] 4724

alluded [2] 4117 5625

attorneys [1] 98

Attorneys [1] 95

Caldwell [1] 189

call [1] 925

4-1-4 [1] 315 alludes [4] 4019 418 486 automatically [1] 1811 called [1] 5017

4-4-1 [1] 307 alluding [2] 915 148 available [1] 4524 calling [1] 4614

40 [2] 1313 518 almost [2] 374 4218 aware [1] 5020 came [1] 112

40-year [1] 5225 alone [1] 3410 away [1] 5611 cannot [2] 722 4419

400 [1] 5223

5 54 [1] 210

already [2] 444 5125

alternate [1] 1017

alternative [2] 40211

amended [1] 723

B B-type [1] 419

back [12] 517 615 718 133 19

careful [1] 2812

carve [5] 424 1625 171 221 57

24

Case [52] 34 6914 922 1110 13

6 Amendment [2] 1617 374 17 248 2516 408 4112 4712 3 1411 1722 189 218 2414 25

6B12 [2] 57810 amicus [3] 1411 1923 4724 556 576 3 2723 288 29324 31518 32

9 among [1] 2019

amount [1] 513

background [2] 3814 394

Bakke [1] 306

13 3314 351114 3656 377 39

23 404 4121 4225 432223 44

994(a)(2)(E [1] 5712 another [1] 4215 balance [2] 2721 2816 21625 45617 4699 4923 50

A answer [10] 416 521 66 72 124

1425 25613 2720 2810

bare [3] 2510 2734

bargain [8] 48 3621 398 5523

17 5116172224 5234 5314

54525 5856 am [3] 114 32 586

anybody [2] 1625 3110 561217 5779 case-by-case [1] 623 abandon [2] 132023

anytime [1] 1523 bargained [1] 91 cases [35] 8920 175 21216 22 able [1] 3523

appeals [6] 921 1111 173 5221 based [14] 313 8151722 917 31 266 235222324 2420 2511 above-entitled [1] 112

23 581 11 387 3913 4223 441921 45 274 287 2914 31816 358 36 absent [3] 816 2010 434

APPEARANCES [1] 116 2 532 5420 23 433 482024 4916 501813 absolute [4] 16172324 3218

appellate [1] 531 basis [1] 624 5112131719 53121625 absolutely [1] 4418

applicable [3] 425 431419 bears [1] 321 categorical [1] 326 absolutist [1] 163

application [4] 1020 302525 54 beginning [1] 5520 categorically [1] 64 accept [3] 3823 4111 4515

7 behalf [8] 11821 24710 38 28 categories [1] 51 acceptance [1] 573

applied [4] 2911 3014 3921 45 23 5415 category [1] 423 accepted [4] 411 4410 57716

25 belief [1] 515 causation [1] 320 accepts [1] 3819

applies [2] 2922 3019 believe [2] 4323 536 caused [1] 193 achieved [1] 3515

apply [7] 68 919 176 201 472 believes [1] 3225 cert [1] 527 achieving [1] 356

4915 546 below [1] 722 certain [2] 42 156 actual [4] 209 262 48915

applying [12] 811 2320 302022 below-guidelines [1] 4412 certainly [6] 1321 2510 421618 actually [5] 37712 3921 415 45

3518 4712 502 52123 532 56 benefit [4] 1322 504 5523 5611 18 5524 25

1516 beset [1] 4619 certificate [4] 45 51113 558 add [1] 354

approach [19] 1041719 1412 best [6] 924 124 2014 21523 chance [2] 551216 additional [5] 43 4120 4519 47

1711 216618 2217 233 2515 5215 change [3] 4427 5616

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1010 - change

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 61: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

60Official

changed [2] 3920 5618

changes [2] 1324 264

chaos [5] 21321 22459

charge [1] 96

charges [7] 43 5359 4120 559

9

CHIEF [16] 339 918 109 1159

14 132 161013 2810182124

5411 584

child [1] 714

choice [2] 326 365

Circuit [8] 1213 1925 2125 291

3416 368 4912

circuits [1] 2610

circuits [5] 294 341819 482 49

9

circumstance [6] 87 4116 4723

5418 5624 5720

circumstances [16] 412 61819

81316 915 137 157 165 2412

2528 56141517 576

cite [2] 3223 5016

clarification [2] 1322 3415

clarify [3] 720 2119 541

clarifying [1] 504

clarity [1] 2010

clear [4] 1220 227 2313 2920

clearer [1] 173

client [1] 910

clients [1] 334

close [2] 322 406

closing [1] 5722

colloquy [1] 5519

combing [2] 3814 403

come [1] 253

comedies [1] 158

comedy [8] 1417182123 1517

24 3435

comes [4] 79 133 1620 481

coming [1] 263

commentary [1] 4918

Commission [4] 421 4522 5614

5712

Commissions [3] 391718 4521

common [10] 318 145 21724

321 3413 361112 5321 544

communists [1] 1621

competency [1] 1725

completely [6] 1323 1820 223

241415 267

compliant [2] 571516

concedes [1] 421

conceding [1] 83

concern [1] 2218

concerned [1] 5317

concerns [1] 291

concluded [1] 1214

concludes [1] 825

conclusion [1] 3220

concurred [3] 112 5124

concurrence [20] 311 93 1816

2367922 241234161921 25

10 32111 3720 511920

concurring [6] 1121 1215 1619

2315 5110 5423

conditions [1] 417

confined [1] 511

confusion [7] 1935512 26816

477

Congress [3] 5613 571124

connection [2] 322 406

consider [1] 5324

considerations [1] 395

considering [3] 81 2919 3818

consistent [4] 97 146 1910 50

19

consistently [2] 3013 5014

constituted [1] 134

Constitution [1] 2710

constitutional [3] 2716 2813

context [8] 461822 4751821 48

1821 4911

continue [1] 206

contrary [8] 159 1721 2220 25

19 29910 3419 517

control [2] 32411

controlling [5] 2511 2925 306

17 5111

controls [3] 238 2419 251

cooperated [1] 712

correct [4] 314 128 536 546

counsel [3] 2819 5412 585

count [5] 102 1221 2223 3721

512

counterpoint [1] 197

counting [5] 10123 138 1710

2311

counting-through [1] 1710

counts [2] 1125 2112

couple [3] 108 158 1717

course [10] 1119 142 166 3221

332 342 3517 4212 4424 486

COURT [92] 1113 310 49 514 6

715 719 818101925 920 10

611 11111724 1292123 134

71618 1424 1524 199 2012

23 2110 22112024 2524 2621

23 27725 2891325 2935710

11141821 301316192224 31

2 3225 3417 352491718 364

61719 39915 458 4627 4711

14 488 496 5181623 52269

1324 53124 54166 577

courts [8] 1014 1121 159 3010

4725 484 53310

courts [26] 1120 1316 173 1917

201124 2210 2525 264 285

11 2913 3313 35813 3613 46

1924 4711 4914 5212212123

5310 5422

covered [3] 18101318

crazy [1] 3324

create [1] 321

criterion [1] 3112

critical [2] 5521 579

criticize [1] 3124

cross-examination [1] 184

current [1] 1921

D DC [5] 191721 2124 492

Davis [1] 4825

day [2] 32411

deal [8] 413 1511 311518 3956

4123 5314

decades [1] 2221

decide [6] 2931415 358 4614

5324

decided [1] 469

deciding [2] 922 1416

decision [8] 1310 19815 4711

25 484 5022 5310

decision-making [1] 2012

decisions [7] 295 4714 48815

522324 533

decisis [6] 2913 357 46210 52

11 538

defendant [4] 46 621 717 3921

Defense [1] 98

defined [1] 524

definition [1] 105

demonstrate [1] 1718

denies [1] 466

denominator [2] 145 2124

deny [3] 232325 286

depart [1] 422

departed [1] 438

Department [1] 120

departs [3] 425810

departure [1] 410

depend [2] 2117 525

depends [1] 1425

describes [1] 418

describing [1] 3017

desirable [1] 3811

determinate [1] 399

determination [2] 623 75

determinations [1] 97

determine [6] 410 617 3010 40

10 411 5714

developed [1] 2919

development [3] 1910 2522 26

7

deviate [1] 712

diagrams [1] 2410

dickered [1] 5718

dicta [4] 1121 1615 2223 362

differed [1] 315

difference [3] 61 3724 394

different [20] 425 551122 65 7

4 1026 121024 2117 2619 28

1 4014 41724 4217 44813 49

5

differently [1] 441

difficulties [1] 179

difficulty [4] 1225 3511 4620 50

2

directed [1] 5712

directly [1] 2513

directs [1] 96

disagree [1] 812

disagreed [1] 1218

disagreement [1] 553

disagreements [1] 4620

discretion [2] 68 89

discretionary [1] 610

discussing [2] 4821 5622

discussion [1] 2614

dismiss [2] 43 5510

dismissed [1] 559

dismissing [1] 53

disqualify [1] 621

disruptive [2] 5218 534

dissent [9] 231024 24251821

2512 511321

dissenting [3] 1023 2113 393

dissents [5] 2219 23411 2919

513

district [10] 49 514 6715 719 8

181025 577

districts [1] 3711

divided [5] 294 3613 471014 48

7

dividing [1] 211

division [1] 369

Dixon [1] 551

doctrine [1] 2922

documented [1] 4719

doing [7] 1318 2025 356 37323

551114

doll [1] 509

dolls [1] 2411

done [7] 349 3518 4115 4348

474 518

door [2] 421 5722

doubt [2] 391416

down [3] 99 174 4512

drawing [1] 4112

drop [1] 722

E each [3] 321 2111

earlier [4] 148 249 4017 493

easy [2] 54 457

effect [9] 317 1314 2420 296 40

23 448 485 5023 5210

efforts [1] 1925

eight [1] 1217

either [1] 4423

Eleventh [1] 1213

eligibility [3] 421 61322

eligible [5] 525 7118 84 5721

embodies [1] 538

emphasize [1] 5620

empirically [1] 378

enables [1] 614

enacted [1] 5711

end [2] 2115 408

endorsed [1] 508

engage [2] 137 1615

enough [8] 413 713 183 4219

20 4320 4510 5716

ensuring [1] 357

entered [1] 4012

entirely [1] 5018

entitled [2] 278 295

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 changed - entitled

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 62: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

61Official

equals [2] 24522

ERIC [5] 117 239 37 5414

ERIK [1] 13

error [1] 414

ESQ [3] 117 239

essentially [6] 241 3620 4825

5116 5223

established [1] 383

evaluate [1] 255

even [9] 1019 1911 2116 22625

238 302 4412 5111

even-handed [1] 199

event [1] 176

everybody [1] 171

everything [2] 2017 2220

evidence [2] 57 4720

evil [1] 196

exact [1] 135

exactly [4] 73 99 128 521

example [3] 1414 3120 431

examples [3] 1717 3716 4919

Except [4] 52 1620 339 3816

exercising [1] 67

exist [1] 2017

expect [1] 384

expectations [1] 3623

expend [1] 529

exposure [1] 55

extent [5] 2316 3510 385 465

17

extreme [1] 915

F fact [5] 1217 1511 1921 4011

446

factors [2] 69 76

facts [3] 2217 2624 3514

fair [2] 155 186

familiar [1] 304

far [7] 1525 168 1715 477919

5316

favorable [1] 4123

favored [3] 302123 3516

feel [1] 2715

felony [3] 44 510 558

few [2] 3915 455

fewer [1] 2323

figure [3] 1012 4114 475

file [1] 558

filed [1] 5017

filing [2] 44 5020

final [1] 5723

fine [5] 3320 343 531213 5610

first [19] 3423 417 520 617 9

1018 101019 141 1617 2122

2917 3523 3916 45521 5124

524

first-best [1] 2015

fit [1] 2411

five [9] 2015 219151617 245

22 3223 5213

flatly [1] 299

fleshed [1] 5125

floor [1] 724

focused [1] 4822

focuses [1] 1010

follow [2] 1214 198

followed [1] 5024

following [4] 313 2620 3119 54

22

force [3] 2316 3715 4611

Ford [1] 1723

foreign [1] 1518

form [2] 321 5525

four [6] 121 141619 1516 316

3912

framed [2] 4823 498

frankly [1] 1824

free [1] 286

Freeman [36] 31216 93 1215

31202425 3524 369151924

371020 38358 3923 4019

418 464161819 4761821 48

1724 49911 542224 5724

French [6] 141821 15819 3320

343

full [1] 1724

fundamental [1] 2520

fundamentally [1] 416

further [3] 271 355 549

future [4] 47310 487 4915

G Gall [2] 81020

gave [1] 4424

General [1] 120

Generals [1] 554

generally [1] 2913

generated [1] 4620

gets [1] 248

GINSBURG [9] 1123 12719 30

219 49121723 506

give [6] 44 124 1414 2113 27

17 4919

given [4] 412 2315 325 4119

giving [7] 41 513 2023 2420 44

14 5011 5611

GORSUCH [7] 4613 4741316

4891317

got [1] 1625

gotten [1] 3820

government [27] 41122024 57

121524 79 196 2145 2622 37

17 381 411822 441415 464

508101114 55722 5610

governments [4] 57 1017 2515

18

grant [2] 232123

granted [1] 526

granting [1] 2416

great [3] 151111 3320

greater [1] 5524

greatest [1] 4611

ground [8] 2622 315891324

323 367

grounds [1] 281

groups [1] 2715

guarantee [1] 613

guaranteed [1] 5721

guess [3] 2021 224 4810

guidance [11] 19231822 2024

331415 355 391718 4522

guide [1] 5616

guideline [13] 411 711 414 426

713141723 431519 4423 45

24

guidelines [1] 4220

guidelines [35] 31421 524 723

81112151823 9281117 374

1924 38721 391920 40513

4123 434 4413713 45918 54

21 5623 5711519

guiding [1] 3822

gun [1] 574

H hallmarks [1] 181

hand [1] 2924

happen [2] 101 3210

happened [1] 1916

happens [3] 177 2711 3922

hard [1] 814

hear [1] 33

help [1] 339

helpful [1] 3416

historical [1] 208

holding [5] 10111415 1815 22

24

holdings [4] 147 2222 2425 25

21

Holiday [1] 344

Honor [18] 418 721 85 1713 23

14 3012 3424 36415 378 382

4117 4612 4710 486 497 52

20 5416

Honors [7] 3618 388 3921125

409 418

hoping [1] 262

HUGHES [2] 13 34

Hulots [1] 344

hundreds [1] 2221

hypothetical [3] 1225 175 5418

hypotheticals [1] 4420

I idea [4] 202 229 2620 503

identical [1] 5123

identically [1] 134

identified [1] 501

identify [2] 2222 519

identifying [2] 2716 3512

ignore [1] 3521

ill [1] 714

illogical [1] 1412

illustration [1] 304

imagine [2] 83 132

imperfect [1] 1719

impermissible [1] 3112

import [1] 281

importance [1] 2425

important [2] 46 922

impose [1] 3910

in-between [1] 3121

incentivizing [1] 3823

included [1] 187

including [1] 3623

incoherent [2] 311011

incorporate [1] 3712

indeed [2] 825 916

indicate [2] 4514 4921

indicated [7] 328 3911 446 45

23 4625 483 5214

indicates [1] 3919

indicating [1] 2424

initially [1] 526

innumerable [1] 1924

inquiry [2] 3525 407

insisted [1] 4415

insofar [1] 2316

instance [6] 87 2122 4119 43

22 44121

instead [3] 133 2418 564

interesting [1] 1410

interpret [2] 3412 5216

interpretation [8] 181617 292

3616 4712 49510

interpreted [4] 1723 371 5015

5423

interpreting [2] 4724 5013

intolerable [1] 323

invites [1] 2211

involved [1] 494

isnt [5] 1914 21518 4219 4319

issue [12] 325 2211 2625 2718

283 3215 36131920 48121

5123

issued [1] 5124

issues [1] 261

itself [4] 316 1023 3118 3615

J job [1] 1319

join [2] 32710

joins [2] 2310 265

judge [26] 49 6715 921 3723

3818182323 40102425 4110

1414 4212 4372425 44510

22 555 5621 5717

judges [3] 335 571314

judgment [14] 511 101116 114

124 2311820 292324 5125

10 5410

judgments [1] 113

jurisprudence [2] 1315 532

Justice [122] 120 33924 415 5

21619 620 78 82 918 109 11

5791423 1271619 132912

141924 1531421 161013 17

16 181101422 19420 2035

13 2120 22171214 23219 24

7713 255714 2645619 275

1320 28511182124 30259

18 313 3212 3315171922 34

17122225 3520 37213 3816

401622 41325 4316111721

4417 4511 4613 4741316 48

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 equals - Justice

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 63: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

62Official

91317 49121723 50624 5115 18 2123 2356 2412 5313 morning [1] 34 often [4] 42 2211 4118 4819

5215 5311 5431117 55214 long [1] 4924 most [6] 821 921 146 379 4823 Okay [2] 519 4114

17 56136 584 long-standing [1] 319 498 older [1] 208

justices [16] 121261017 1318 look [12] 910 11182021 1722 move [1] 63 once [5] 2620 383 5010 5117

1523 16266 1741324 219 39 2158 3212 3812 3916 513 54 movement [1] 724 19

12 521 25 movie [2] 1416 3320 one [28] 325 616 1216 139 21

justifiable [2] 426 4514 looking [2] 912 145 moving [1] 63 23 234 271417 289 2922 303

justified [1] 411 losing [2] 551522 Ms [39] 282124 3012 3117 3312 21 3415 3531223 3624 3812

justifies [1] 513 loss [1] 514 1618 34111424 352 363 376 4214 438 4521 493919 507

K lot [5] 4620 4713 4820 5222 53

1

382 391 4021 4125 4225 43

101621 45413 4623 4791522

16 5210 553

ones [4] 335 51424 5610 KAGAN [14] 203513 2120 221 lots [2] 2324 4919 48121619 49142025 5012 51 only [15] 6112 818 91 1013 13 8 23219 24713 255714 313 lower [23] 715 111720 12921 6 5219 5323 544 10 2315 2920 30321 3420 36

keep [1] 413 1316 1917 2011 2210 2525 26 much [5] 724 1922 2322 4211 12 3919 499 5719 keeps [1] 557 423 28511 2913 3313 358 36 4317 open [1] 421 KENNEDY [1] 5215 13 4221 4619 539 54622 multiple [2] 320 3514 opinion [37] 111225 1215 1619 kept [1] 56

key [2] 1522 333 M must [1] 3324

mystery [2] 1419 1520

231517 2925 303614172020

2225 31212122 32718 3512 kind [4] 138 2018 2616 4015

kinds [2] 3712 417

made [4] 623 1915 44422

Madison [1] 3219 N 3618 388 392311 4019 418

467 49256 5019 511012 54 King [2] 2125 493 main [1] 2917 namely [2] 319 4223 23 knowing [1] 413 majority [13] 105 209 2525 277 narrow [3] 3122 561415 opinions [17] 315 111822 123 knowledge [1] 3711 924 2814 301624 312 3516 narrowest [4] 181524 3512 519 2217 2624 2813 29723 3118 KOVNER [42] 119 26 282122 24 3711 nearly [2] 134 1512 23 3514 481022 5112325 24 3012 3117 33121618 3411 mandatory [2] 4119 4414 necessarily [4] 1820 196 2614 opportunity [1] 254 1424 352 363 376 382 391 40 manner [1] 358 5317 opposite [1] 4425 21 4125 4225 43101621 454 Manual [1] 95 necessary [7] 1015 114 2225 option [1] 2015 13 4623 4791522 48121619 many [3] 47 232223 231719 3220 483 oral [5] 112 225 37 2822 49142025 5012 516 5219 53 Marbury [1] 3219 need [10] 1834 3313 3420 3611 order [2] 4523 5022 23 544 March [1] 110 5116 52238 5324 ordinarily [6] 614 81722 914 10

L Marks [54] 317 919 10101220 negotiate [1] 384 13 3117

land [1] 1216

language [2] 1519 1823

Laughter [4] 33112125 346

law [8] 1216 1313 1911 2522 26

7 321617 348

lawyers [1] 334

lays [1] 1924

leads [2] 302123

learn [1] 3217

least [9] 156 169 171720 1911

2325 111 131220 143 1811

141724 192 201 292101118

22 30114 338 3410 3534618

25 36710 46151724 471 48

1521 4910 502521 51616 52

182224 5324612 5478

matter [4] 112 813 1110 3224

McWane [1] 5017

mean [15] 1514 2013 22918 31

4 33172022 347 361 4022 46

23 5012 5220 5323

negotiations [1] 3814

nested [3] 223 241415

never [2] 271318

nevertheless [1] 3125

next [1] 253

Nichols [1] 145

nine [1] 1415

Ninth [1] 491

nobody [3] 3225 3310 446

none [1] 308

nonetheless [1] 451

ordinary [2] 814 456

organized [1] 468

original [2] 413 4222

other [24] 425 69 74 914 104

1114 1615 2111 2612 2715

327 335 3419 391224 417 46

7 4720 4814 4919 5316 5525

569

others [1] 308

otherwise [1] 5115

out [20] 424 10112 1225 16252122 453 4718 5716

Leave [1] 3410

led [1] 2923

left [1] 2623

legal [1] 5321

legally [1] 164

length [1] 5623

less [4] 1649 182 2724

lesser [1] 187

level [1] 1911

levels [1] 4221

life [1] 4416

light [1] 3718

meaning [4] 814 1814 196 388

meaningful [1] 2615

means [8] 1614 1813 4113 453

4616 476 505 557

member [1] 3022

members [6] 112 301516 312

5122 5213

mentioned [1] 4224

merits [2] 272 463

middle [9] 2622 307 3147913

24 323 5713

might [9] 1223 1413 1517 253

16 3134 421415

nor [2] 212222

norm [1] 209

norms [1] 147

nose [1] 138

note [1] 393

nothing [3] 154 1915 4420

notions [1] 2520

nots [1] 3011

notwithstanding [3] 1217 4516

16

number [1] 62

O

171 1924 2024 221 261 4114

457 475 49115 5125 52421

5319 5724

outside [5] 4517 461822 4717

21

over [9] 8191919 161 336 52

222424 5718

overlap [2] 1820 2410

overrule [1] 534

overruling [1] 5218

own [2] 202425

oxymoron [1] 5320

likely [1] 2610 mind [2] 265 5611 ODell [1] 113 P limited [1] 2921 minimum [2] 4119 4414 objections [2] 2114 2917 PAGE [2] 22 113 limiting [1] 581 minority [1] 125 obviously [3] 3617 464 494 pages [1] 1922 LINDSEY [1] 13 minutes [1] 5413 occasioned [1] 2610 paired [1] 2512 lines [1] 5320 misunderstood [1] 86 occur [1] 2011 Palmer [1] 2125 literal [1] 1817 Molina-Martinez [1] 821 occurs [1] 91 Panetti [1] 1723 little [1] 517 moment [5] 916 111616 2517 offender [1] 510 paper [1] 1924 live [1] 184 23 Office [1] 554 part [14] 52022 66 1824 2224 logical [11] 1431222 151015 17 months [2] 4289 officer [1] 5622 2610 321616 332 379 4012

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 Justice - part

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 64: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

63Official

4199 4824

particular [8] 422 1110 278 35

11 404 433 442 4517

particularly [1] 1519

parties [17] 94 362022 384615

398 401219 41101215 433

445 556 5621 5718

parties [2] 3813 4324

parts [1] 416

party [1] 278

passed [2] 1356

past [1] 503

pay [4] 129 2812 322122

people [6] 141525 152324 16

23 2016

percolate [1] 2210

percolation [1] 2010

performing [1] 571

Perhaps [5] 86 1321 253 4211

503

period [2] 521225

persistent [3] 44 510 558

persuasiveness [1] 2611

pervasive [1] 4717

petition [3] 3522 501618

Petitioner [8] 1418 2410 38 29

16 459 5415

Petitioners [2] 402 4113

Petitioners [1] 5015

petitions [1] 5016

Peugh [1] 820

Philadelphia [1] 3323

phrased [1] 4017

pick [2] 2022 5319

picked [1] 716

picking [3] 2019 2922 3014

place [2] 617 3812

player [1] 3817

plea [12] 3625 3725 381021 41

6911 4324 441011 467 5525

plea-bargaining [1] 97

pleas [2] 417 468

please [3] 310 205 2825

plug [1] 272

plurality [17] 311 622 1724 188

15 2371021 2417 3125 3224

8 3817 511318 5515

pluralitys [1] 3715

plus [2] 24421

point [6] 1713 261823 556 572

23

points [4] 1225 1821 5220 574

policy [1] 812

posed [1] 919

position [11] 111 2121 2314 30

8 318 324 3618 3715 5014 52

1717

positions [2] 3159

possible [1] 3114

post-Booker [2] 8920

potentially [1] 62

Powell [2] 181 332

Powells [1] 306

practical [2] 1169

precedent [11] 101314 1125 12

12 147 2223 2521 271424 28

15 3010

precedential [4] 317 296 485

5023

precedents [3] 1317 159 2222

precisely [1] 2523

predicated [2] 76 1022

predict [1] 1222

predictability [1] 1913

predictable [1] 1910

predictive [1] 5025

prerogative [2] 167 1714

presumption [1] 156

pretend [1] 1124

pretty [3] 1324 186 2520

principle [2] 2912 537

principles [2] 319 4611

privileging [1] 2325

probably [1] 192

probation [1] 5622

problem [6] 1516 1825 2018 46

18 47817

problematic [1] 179

problems [3] 2020 4621 4720

proceedings [1] 1725

process [1] 5713

Professor [7] 141010 1510 17

21 19120 4921

profound [1] 1324

prohibiting [1] 5424

proposed [2] 444 5510

proposing [1] 424

prosecute [2] 46 559

prosecutor [4] 3722 381922 54

19

prosecutors [3] 96 3739

provide [2] 209 355

provided [3] 192 3625 3716

provides [1] 2710

providing [1] 1922

provision [2] 27917

proximate [1] 320

public [1] 334

pure [1] 362

purports [1] 1020

purposes [1] 5211

pursuing [1] 4810

push [1] 517

put [7] 93 1116 144 2125 439

556 5712

puts [1] 2622

putting [1] 3810

puzzle [1] 1522

Q qualifies [1] 1014

question [30] 325 416 6712 86

919 1117 1211 135 2013 22

16 248 251417 2762025 28

14 3313 352224 36101116 37

14 40171819 461525

questions [3] 3521 4118 549

quibble [1] 228

quick [1] 276

quintessential [1] 2723

quite [6] 1024 136 2219 5222

5314

R RACHEL [3] 119 26 2822

raise [1] 2916

range [8] 411 523 63 723 426

7 56912

Rapanos [4] 4725 48522 5013

rather [6] 62 1519 2110 317 38

13 4615

Re [10] 1410 1510 1721 19114

2123 4918 52161620

Res [2] 1920 4921

reach [5] 106 1311 2524 3524

25

reaching [1] 2418

read [4] 624 79 123 3218

reading [2] 718 5018

real [5] 1917 342 394 461821

really [7] 2019 3323 3612 4018

1925 431

reason [10] 3018 3113 321415

3614 4121 4323 449 462 537

reasoning [14] 316 1015 1218

1819 2016 21717 298 311 36

11 4423 483 5022 544

reasons [10] 714 2424 3925 42

469 4424 4551520

REBUTTAL [2] 28 5414

recent [1] 4825

recently [1] 821

recognize [1] 5315

recognized [2] 312 3825

recommending [1] 711

reconsideration [1] 719

record [3] 404 5620 571

reduction [1] 573

refer [1] 4419

referred [1] 4918

referring [1] 4213

refers [1] 4421

refine [1] 143

refinement [1] 1323

regard [1] 484

rejected [1] 4324

rejecting [1] 293

rejects [1] 555

relates [1] 3615

relatively [2] 54 915

reliance [3] 321 2424 5424

relied [1] 5222

relief [15] 422 611114 232123

2425 2416 27810 286 4524

466 5721

relies [2] 2219 233

relieve [1] 476

relying [2] 4510 578

Remember [2] 612 568

repeating [1] 4311

representation [2] 38124

request [1] 610

require [1] 1724

requirement [2] 4712 542

requires [4] 1321 291319 5021

reserve [2] 2721 2816

resolve [6] 212 271 3417 3656

3916

resolved [3] 2718 283 3619

resolving [3] 2725 4615 477

resources [1] 529

respectfully [1] 456

Respondent [4] 1721 27 2823

responsibility [1] 573

restraints [1] 1618

result [12] 107 2320 2418 258

10 262 302123 321 351516

448

resulted [1] 1925

results [4] 218 273 3420 3612

retroactively [1] 5616

return [1] 208

reversal [2] 105 1112

reversed [1] 923

road [1] 174

ROBERTS [10] 33 918 1159 16

1013 281821 5411 584

romantic [8] 1417182123 157

1724 345

rule [23] 17615 2019 292 3256

349 356 3625 3710 385 452

463 50521 5171114 521414

536

rules [3] 1719 3218 4915

run [2] 2624 3513

run-the-facts-through-the-opi

nions [1] 1018

running [1] 2216

Russian [2] 2411 509

S same [11] 615 73 99 1119 135

8 2424 297 481 5619 576

sat [1] 5717

saying [8] 78 16316 1724 182

24119 564

says [16] 710 8810 1024 1619

1814 197 215 3718 3817 421

3810 5419 5610

scenario [1] 84

scenarios [1] 625

school [1] 3217

science [1] 3216

second [6] 522 66 1022 2014

326 3614

second-best [2] 21618

secondary [1] 2218

Section [1] 578

see [20] 814 121 1416171819

2123 1517182024 162 33123

3425 3515 404 543

seek [1] 5721

seem [2] 3110 4717

seems [3] 92123 103

seen [2] 54 3710

send [1] 576

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 part - send

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years

Page 65: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES · holding or the judgment of the Court. And so, under Marks, what we're trying to figure out is whether there's precedent. Ordinarily, only a court's

64Official

sending [1] 1916 speaks [1] 113 theyve [2] 349 474 views [1] 3419

sense [14] 75 818 1021 151112 Spears [1] 810 third [1] 3522 vote [4] 1216 2245 329

169 2921 3119 3413 422324 specific [1] 398 though [4] 1110 302 4714 5111 vote-counting [1] 273

5321 57519 specifically [1] 1024 three [2] 5413 572 voted [1] 3125

sensible [2] 146 333 splinters [1] 2621 throw [1] 4425 votes [7] 10223 114 121022 21

sentence [23] 31222 512 711 split [10] 198 26891112 291 34 together [1] 263 13 2225

151621 81517 91 387 39910 16 368 4825 498 took [3] 308 3617 464 W 13 406 42522 4313 441216 splits [2] 1925 239 transcript [1] 79

451517 5419 splitting [1] 2025 treat [2] 294 5111 waiver [1] 373

sentenced [1] 3922 squarely [1] 498 treating [2] 292425 waivers [1] 3712

sentences [3] 525 822 916 stare [7] 2912 357 4611010 52 trial [1] 181 walking [1] 925

sentencing [10] 58 75 3718 39 11 538 true [6] 419 238 2921 31323 50 wanted [3] 189 32910

1718 442 45212225 5623 start [2] 94 5417 9 wants [2] 354 365

separate [1] 296 started [1] 5519 try [4] 2115 2516 5319 5518 Washington [3] 191720

separately [1] 182 starting [1] 556 trying [4] 1012 2525 4010 475 way [25] 41825 65 924 111520

serious [1] 1515 STATES [6] 11614 35 95 5425 Tuesday [1] 110 1317 146 1611 212 223 243

set [3] 222 4914 524 statutory [2] 3616 4610 turn [3] 2120 2216 2516 261520 2717 2914 3014 357

sets [1] 491 stifles [1] 2614 turning [1] 563 4017 416 529 539 55111424

several [1] 508 still [4] 517 718 1916 381 twice [2] 5117 523 ways [3] 312 734

shadow [1] 92 stop [3] 2525 261 4813 two [18] 31217 416 734 122 14 whatever [5] 714 925 191 463

share [1] 297 Story [1] 3324 1720 1523 1821 2714 29416 3

shared [3] 3420 483 5021 straightforward [1] 547 3418 3520 4221 482 574 Whereupon [1] 586

sharply [2] 1218 5518 strange [2] 136 282 two-thirds [1] 3219 whether [12] 410 617 1013 12

shouldnt [3] 913 1621 3825 strength [3] 56 1825 1919 types [1] 569 11 168 263 3515 404 4578 47

show [1] 344

shows [1] 5621

strongly [1] 2715

stunt [1] 2522 U

20 5715

will [13] 638 725 817 916 3118

SHUMSKY [50] 117 239 3679 stunted [1] 267 ultimate [1] 2012 339 401819 42216 431418

24 415 51620 7220 85 108 subject [2] 104 1112 ultimately [3] 3967 444 wins [1] 243

1113 127 14124 15521 1611 submitted [2] 5857 umbrella [1] 319 wise [4] 111820 129 2812

1712 181221 1919 20347 21 subscribed [1] 3015 unable [1] 2524 within [3] 187 38720

19 2271315 23213 24623 25 subsequent [1] 3623 unanimous [1] 3225 without [2] 125 1917

9 2618 271219 28820 5413 subset [10] 1441222 1515 17 under [25] 31718 422 611117 witnesses [1] 185

1416 551317 56258 18 2124 2356 2412 5313 791721 87913 1012 137 15 wonder [3] 920 178 2021

side [2] 327 4425 subsets [1] 1510 69 164 1816 1914 2411 251 wondering [1] 4719

sides [1] 2612 substance [1] 3714 3720 4115 5617 575 word [1] 4418

significant [2] 1720 4422 substantial [1] 713 undercuts [1] 2912 words [2] 1615 4314

similar [1] 114 suddenly [1] 348 underlying [2] 1924 3610 work [1] 432

simply [5] 725 1214 1713 2047 sufficiently [1] 405 understand [1] 4613 workable [1] 452

since [1] 468 suggest [1] 5020 understanding [5] 1612 3624 works [1] 5312

single [1] 309 suggested [1] 5021 379 38613 world [1] 2014

sit [1] 99 suggesting [1] 172 understood [2] 131517 worlds [1] 3114

situation [4] 920 1819 1921 27 suggests [3] 269 459 5515 undesirable [1] 5210 worse [1] 1314

11 support [1] 1016 UNITED [7] 11613 3518 95 54 worst [1] 3113

situations [1] 1818 supported [1] 311 25 write [6] 321314 337 349 424

slightly [2] 1224 465 supports [1] 503 unless [2] 2714 296 4512

so-called [1] 509 suppose [5] 117 153 276 343 up [12] 42412 51314 133 254 writing [3] 1111 182 424

Solicitor [2] 119 554 4417 3820 4119 4414 481 5011 wrote [1] 1410

solution [2] 202223 SUPREME [4] 1113 1222 2110 urge [4] 366 399 5325 5410 Y someone [4] 46 625 84 1616

Sometimes [7] 4235 162 234

241617

surely [4] 2224 28911 3922

surprising [2] 824 913

T

using [2] 88 574

utility [1] 1720

utterly [1] 3110

years [7] 1356913 2221 305

518

somewhat [1] 525 V sorry [7] 86 1614 205 2215 266

4612 4810

sort [14] 420 914 101 1710 261

3120 3614 3813 393624 457

46825

sorts [1] 3115

SOTOMAYOR [30] 324 415 52

1719 620 78 82 18101422 19

420 247 26619 3520 37213

3816 401622 413 5417 552

1417 56136

sounds [1] 213

talks [1] 111

term [1] 815

terms [2] 114 499

test [2] 144 1914

theoretical [1] 2114

theres [24] 610 723 83 1013 15

15 1623 1912 268 276 3120

3415 3511 369 3817 39414

4121 449 4519 461 502 528

531 541

thereafter [1] 3217

Therefore [1] 4421

valuable [1] 413

various [1] 2113

vast [1] 3711

vehicle [1] 526

Venn [1] 2410

version [2] 1878

versus [5] 34 2125 3219 4217

551

vertical [4] 2912 356 5211 538

view [8] 151 163817 1920 26

11 294 333

Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 sending - years


Recommended