| |
|
|
 |
NEWS |
|
Kimbrough v. U.S., 552 U.S.___ (12/2007) The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit Appellate Court’s decision that the District Court abused its discretion when it sentenced defendant Kimbrough to a statutory 15 year minimum mandatory sentence. The sentence was 4.5 years below the advisory guideline sentence and based it’s departure in part upon the disparate nature between the crack and powder cocaine guidelines. Ginsburg delivered the opinion for the Court which determined that the district court’s sentence was appropriate and rationally reasoned and framed in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), ’a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary.’ The opinion sites the U.S. Sentencing Commissions recent November amendment which lowered the advisory guideline for crack cocaine noting the extreme disparity in the guidelines between powder and crack cocaine both of which defendant Kimbrough had conspired to distribute. |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gall v. U.S., 552 U.S.___ (12/2007) The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit Appellate Court’s decision that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that defendant Gall’s 18 U.S.C. 2553(a) factors justified a downward departure to a sentence of straight probation rather than the 30-37 month incarceration recommended by the U.S. Probation Department. The opinion corrected the appellate court’s review of sentences by adding that a ‘due deference’ must be given to the district court’s decisions regarding sentencing, translating to more discretion at the district court level in determining what is ‘reasonable’ for each individual defendant. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 "When the judge elects to give a non-Guideline sentence, [s/he] should carefully articulate the reasons she concludes that the sentences [s/he] has selected is appropriate for that defendant. These reasons should be fact specific and include, for example, aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to personal characteristics of the defendant, his offense conduct, his criminal history, relevant conduct or other facts specific to the case at hand which led the court to conclude that the sentence imposed was fair and reasonable. Such reasons are essential to permit this court to review the sentence for reasonableness as directed by Booker. " U.S. v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005)
|
