| In recent years, several decisions by the United States | | | | ruled that federal district court judges have greater |
| Supreme Court have determined how federal courts | | | | latitude in imposing a sentence that falls outside the |
| now apply the federal guidelines at sentencing. The | | | | Sentencing Guideline range for a particular sentence. |
| most notable is United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 | | | | The Court held that district courts need not be required |
| (2005), where the Supreme Court transformed the | | | | to give "extraordinary reasons" for departing from the |
| federal sentencing guidelines from mandatory to | | | | Guidelines, as long as they do no abuse their discretion |
| advisory as a way of curing a defect that rendered | | | | in imposing a particular sentence. |
| the guidelines unconstitutional. | | | | The Court was not finished yet as it had granted |
| In Booker, the Court directed that sentences meted | | | | another case by the name of Kimbrough v. United |
| out under the newly advisory guidelines should be | | | | States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), certiorari in order to |
| reviewed, if challenged, by the federal courts of | | | | answer additional questions about the use of the |
| appeals to determine whether they are "reasonable." In | | | | guidelines at sentencing. |
| response, a number of appellate courts gravitated | | | | In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court affirmed that district |
| back to the guidelines. They affirmed as "reasonable" | | | | court judges have the discretion to deviate from |
| within-guideline range sentences, but vacated as "not | | | | federal sentencing guidelines and to consider other |
| reasonable" sentences that fell below the guideline | | | | factors - including disparities in crack and powder |
| range. | | | | cocaine sentences - when issuing sentences to drug |
| The picture became a little more cloudy last year with | | | | offenders. This decision seemed to go hand in hand |
| the decision Rita v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 19 (2007). | | | | with the United States Sentencing Commission's |
| There the Supreme Court addressed whether a | | | | amendment to the guidelines that reduced the crack |
| within-guideline sentence could be "presumed | | | | offender offense levels due to disparity. |
| reasonable" and determined that it could. | | | | Many experts agree that these decisions have given |
| The question of how or whether the presumption | | | | federal district judges back the discretion that was |
| applies to sentences below the guideline range was | | | | once stripped away from them at sentencing. In the |
| not decided because the petitioner in the companion | | | | pre-Booker days, the sentencing judge had no choice |
| case, Claiborne v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2245 | | | | but to follow the guidelines or else run the risk of being |
| (2007), died while it was pending and his case was | | | | reversed by a government appeal in the appellate |
| dismissed. | | | | court. |
| In the fall of 2007, the Court granted certiorari to the | | | | Finally, these district judges are now free to exercise |
| case Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007) to | | | | some long overdue common sense in determining an |
| answer the question that it was not able to do in | | | | offender's sentence. |
| Claiborne. On December 11, 2007, the Supreme Court | | | | |