Debevoise & Plimpton LLP will be presenting oral argument on November 12, 2025, before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of its client Johnnie Markel Carter, in Carter v. United States (No. 24-860), a criminal appeal that has been consolidated with Rutherford v. United States (No. 24-820). The firm will argue that the U.S. Sentencing Commission faithfully discharged its statutory duty by permitting district courts to consider gross disparities in sentencing length when deciding whether to grant relief.

In 2009, Mr. Carter was sentenced to 70 years in prison for a series of bank robberies. His sentence was comprised largely of “stacked” mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a practice that Congress since abolished with the First Step Act of 2018. At sentencing, the judge observed that Mr. Carter’s sentence was “longer than necessary to accomplish the purposes of federal sentencing.” Were he to be sentenced under today’s law, Mr. Carter would have faced 21 years of mandatory time. Mr. Carter has served over 18 years of this sentence and has maintained an exemplary record of rehabilitation and service while incarcerated.

In 2023, Mr. Carter filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted a reduction in his sentence because of the changes to the First Step Act, in conjunction with his record of rehabilitation and good conduct. His appeal concerns the validity of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) (“Section (b)(6)”), which allows courts to consider, in narrow circumstances, nonretroactive changes in law as part of the “extraordinary and compelling” reasons standard under § 3582(c)(1)(A).

“The question before the Court is whether the Commission fulfilled the responsibility Congress expressly assigned to it,” said Debevoise litigation partner David A. O’Neil, counsel of record for Mr. Carter. “We believe the answer is yes. Section (b)(6) represents a valid, carefully considered policy judgment that gives judges the discretion to reduce sentences in extraordinary circumstances.”

Debevoise’s representation of Mr. Carter is part of the firm’s Holloway Project, an initiative spearheaded by litigation partner and former federal judge John Gleeson. The Holloway Project seeks to rectify and reduce draconian and since-repudiated federal sentences for clients like Mr. Carter. More than 200 current and former Debevoise associates have helped 69 clients reduce a total of more than 2,988 years from their federal sentences.

The Debevoise team is led by David A. O’Neil and includes counsel Anna Moody and associates Ardis Strong, Steven Tegrar, Leah Rosenberg, Suzanne Zakaria, Taylor Booth, Madeline Silva, James Stramm, Camila Isern, Sofia Squatriti Muno, Ned Terrace, Sarah Brody-Bizar, Alexandra McDevitt, Raphael Vim and Laura Hallas.