## Facts

- Mark E. Pulsifer pleaded guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.
- Pulsifer’s criminal record included two prior three-point offenses under the Sentencing Guidelines, totaling six criminal history points.
- Pulsifer did not have a prior two-point violent offense.
- Pulsifer sought “safety valve” relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018.
- The disputed statutory language requires that “the defendant does not have” three listed criminal-history features: (A) more than four criminal history points (excluding points from one-point offenses), (B) a prior three-point offense, and (C) a prior two-point violent offense.
- Pulsifer argued that a defendant is disqualified only if all three features are present together.

## Issues

1. Whether § 3553(f)(1) disqualifies a defendant from safety-valve relief only if the defendant has all three listed criminal-history features (A, B, and C), or instead disqualifies the defendant if the defendant has any one of them.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court held that a defendant is eligible for safety-valve relief under § 3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the three subconditions—i.e., lacks A, lacks B, and lacks C.
- Because Pulsifer had more than four criminal history points and had a prior three-point offense, he was ineligible for safety-valve relief even though he lacked a two-point violent offense.
- Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion; Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

## Legal Principles

- In § 3553(f)(1), the phrase requiring that a defendant “does not have” A, B, and C functions as a set of separate disqualifying conditions within the safety-valve eligibility criteria.
- A defendant is disqualified from safety-valve relief if the defendant has any one of the listed criminal-history characteristics: (A) more than four criminal history points (with the statutory exclusion), (B) a prior three-point offense, or (C) a prior two-point violent offense.
- The meaning of “and” in a statutory list may depend on statutory structure and context, not the isolated word alone.
- Dissenting view: the statutory text is at least ambiguous, and the ordinary reading and rule of lenity support disqualification only when all three features are present together.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted § 3553(f)(1) to impose three independent criminal-history limits for safety-valve eligibility, so a defendant who has any one of the listed characteristics remains subject to the applicable drug mandatory minimum.


Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124 (2024)