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