In today's Supreme Court orders list, Justices Sotomayor and Gisburg issued their 28th dissent from their colleagues refusal to grant review from career offenders arguing that the Johnson vagueness ruling made their (pre-Booker) guideline sentences unconstitutional. In Patrick v. United States, No. 19-7755 (Mar. 30, 2020) (cert. denied), the two justices dissented, though it seems this may be their last dissent:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Recognizing that the Court has repeatedly declined to grant certiorari on this important issue -- whether the right recognized in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015), applies to defendants sentenced under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines -- I will cease noting my dissent in future petitions presenting the question. I hope, however, that the Court will at some point reconsider its reluctance to answer it.
See also RJ Vojt, In Dissent: Why 2 Justices Keep Spotlighting Career Offenders, Law360 (Feb. 2, 2020)
The Training Divsion provides sentencing resources that will help you argue for the best sentence possible for your clients.