Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Beckles v. United States

Issues

Does the Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), apply retroactively to the residual clause in section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines?

The Supreme Court will decide whether the holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), makes the residual clause in section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines void for vagueness and, if so, whether this new rule gives relief to Petitioner Travis Beckles by retroactively applying to collateral cases challenging federal sentences under § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause. Beckles argues that § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause is void for vagueness under Johnson because the residual clauses in both cases are identical, and the Court held that the clause in Johnson was void for vagueness. Beckles also asserts that this new rule applies retroactively under the Court’s test in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). Respondent the United States argues, however, that Beckles’s new rule would not apply retroactively because it is a procedural rather than a substantive rule, and thus the Court should reject his request at this threshold. The United States further argues that if the Court does reach the merits, § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness with respect to those applications expressly specified in the commentary to § 4B1.2(a)(2) because this commentary clarifies the otherwise vague guideline. This case will address whether retroactive resentencing for “career offenders” will burden the federal system and will clarify the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines in terms of due process concerns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), deemed unconstitutionally vague the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining "violent felony"). The residual clause invalidated in Johnson is identical to the residual clause in the career-offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (defining "crime of violence").

The questions presented are:

  1. Whether Johnson applies retroactively to collateral cases challenging federal sentences enhanced under the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)?
  2. Whether Johnson's constitutional holding applies to the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (2), thereby rendering challenges to sentences enhanced under it cognizable on collateral review?
  3. Whether mere possession of a sawed-off shotgun, an offense listed as a "crime of violence" only in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, remains a "crime of violence" after Johnson?

In 2007, police arrested Travis Beckles after recovering a sawed-off shotgun in his residence. See United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 837–38 (11th Cir. 2009). At trial, the jury found Beckles guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Concepcion v. United States

Issues

Whether drug offenders that are eligible for a sentencing reduction based on Section 404(b) of the First Step Act are entitled to have intervening legal factors and developments considered at their resentencing?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the First Step Act requires or merely allows courts to consider post-sentencing developments during First Step Act sentence modifications. Petitioner Carlos Concepcion argues that the First Step Act requires courts to consider post-sentencing legal and factual developments during sentence modifications. Respondent United States counters that the First Step Act grants courts the discretion to consider post-sentencing developments during sentence modifications. The outcome of this case will impact the sentencing of many low-level drug offenders as well as a court’s authority over resentencing under Section 404 of the First Step Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments?

In 2006, Petitioner Carlos Concepcion (“Concepcion”) was arrested on felony drug charges. Concepcion v. United States at 283. Federal investigators alleged Concepcion was involved in the illegal sale of at least 27.5 grams of crack cocaine and 186.34 grams of powdered cocaine. Id. In 2008, Petitioner Carlos Concepcion pled guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute or distributing at least 5 grams of crack cocaine. Id.

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

Dillon v. United States

Issues

After Booker, are federal courts allowed to deviate from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when resentencing prisoners based on retroactively applicable Guideline modifications? Or are they still bound to follow the (albeit modified) Guidelines?

Pursuant to a statutory sentence-reduction proceeding, are courts permitted to recalculate the underlying Guideline range, or must they adhere to their initial calculation?

 

In 1993, Petitioner Percy Dillon was tried and convicted in federal court for possession of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 322 months in prison under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Subsequently, the Supreme Court determined in United States v. Booker that the Guidelines were only advisory, not mandatory, and Congress retroactively reduced the Guideline range for crack cocaine offenses. Dillon filed a motion to have his sentence retroactively reduced, and argued that under Booker the Guidelines are not binding on his resentencing. The district court rejected this view, and reduced Dillon’s sentence to 277 under the new Guidelines. The Third Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue of whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are binding or merely advisory on retroactive sentence reductions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

I. Whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are binding when a district court imposes a new sentence pursuant to a revised guideline range under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.

II. Whether during a § 3582(c)(2) sentencing, a district court is required to impose sentence based on an admittedly incorrectly calculated guideline range.

In 1993, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania convicted Percy Dillon of a number of federal crimes relating to his possession of crack cocaine. See US v. Dillon, 572 F.3d 146, 147 (3d Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Wex: Law about Federal Sentencing

​

Submit for publication
0

Gall v. United States

Issues

Can a district court impose a sentence outside of the range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines without providing an extraordinary reason to justify the deviation?

 

In 2000, Brian Michael Gall was involved in a drug ring for approximately 8 months. Five years later, he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The judge sentencing Gall chose to impose a sentence far below the sentence range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) because of Gall’s exemplary and law-abiding behavior after he left the conspiracy. On appeal, this sentence was held unreasonable because of its great deviation from the sentence range recommended by the Guidelines. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court held that requiring a judge to impose a sentence within the Guidelines sentence range violates the Sixth Amendment, but that a sentence within the Guidelines range can be presumed reasonable. Consequently, though courts are not required to sentence within the Guidelines range, they are expected to consider the range in their sentencing decisions, and it is uncertain how much discretion they have to depart from the range. Gall v. United States will clarify the role of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in sentencing decisions and what justification is needed for a departure from the Guidelines sentencing range.

 

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether, when determining the “reasonableness” of a district court sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), it is appropriate to require district courts to justify a deviation from the United States Sentencing Guidelines with finding of extraordinary circumstances.

     

    In early 2000, Brian Michael Gall, began selling methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA” or ecstasy) as part of a drug distribution ring in Iowa. U.S. v. Gall, 446 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2006). Gall would purchase MDMA in 1,000 tablet increments, and then sell the tablets to others whom he knew were distributing the drug in the community. Id. While part of the drug conspiracy, Gall earned $30,000 to $40,000 in profit. Brief for Petitioner at 2. In September 2000, Gall decided to leave the drug conspiracy. Gall, 446 F.3d at 886.

    Additional Resources

    Submit for publication
    0

    Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States

    Issues

    If a permanent resident of the United States is convicted in state court of a drug offense that state law classifies as a felony but that federal law classifies as a misdemeanor, should the offense qualify as an “aggravated felony” for the purposes of federal immigration and sentencing law, resulting in deportation and harsher sentencing under federal law?

     

    Both Jose Antonio Lopez and Reymundo Toledo-Flores are permanent residents of the United States who were convicted of drug crimes that are felonies at the state level but misdemeanors under federal law. The government argues that both Lopez’s and Toledo-Flores’s crimes qualify as “aggravated felonies.” If that is the case, Lopez will be barred from seeking a waiver of the deportation order issued against him while Toledo-Flores will be subject to a stricter sentence under the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Lopez and Toledo-Flores argue that their drug crimes do not meet the definition of an aggravated felony because they are not felonies under federal law. Thus, the Court must decide whether drug offenses that are state felonies but federal misdemeanors satisfy the federal statutory definition of aggravated felony.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Lopez v. Gonzales

    Whether an immigrant who is convicted in state court of a drug crime that is a felony under the state’s law but would only be a misdemeanor under federal law has committed an “aggravated felony” for purposes of the immigration laws.

    Toledo-Flores v. United States

    Has the Fifth Circuit erred in holding – in opposition to the Second, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits – that a state felony conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance is a “drug trafficking crime” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) and hence an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), even though the same crime is a misdemeanor under federal law?

    Lopez v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2005)

    Jose Antonio Lopez is a permanent resident of the United States. A South Dakota state court convicted Lopez of aiding and abetting the possession of a controlled substance, a felony crime in South Dakota. Lopez v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 934, 935 (8th Cir. 2005).

    Additional Resources

    Submit for publication
    0

    Pepper v. United States

    Issues

    1. When a defendant's sentence has been set aside, may a federal district court judge consider a defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation in re-sentencing?

    2. If a new judge is assigned to resentence the defendant, must the new judge follow the original judge’s sentencing findings under the law of the case doctrine?

     

    After his arrest in 2003, Jason Pepper pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cooperated with the authorities by testifying against his co-defendants. Due to his lack of prior convictions, cooperation with the authorities, and his desire to seek drug treatment, the district court judge gave Pepper a 24-months prison sentence, which was substantially below the 97 to 121 months recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Eighth Circuit reversed for resentencing, determining that the district court abused its discretion by decreasing Pepper's sentence based on the court's desire to give Pepper the shortest possible sentence. During the appeal, Pepper successfully completed his sentence, married, stayed drug-free, obtained a job, and achieved straight A's in college. Upon remand to the district court, Pepper was again sentenced to 24 months in prison, this time due to his post-sentence rehabilitation. The Eighth Circuit again reversed for resentencing, finding that the judge could not consider post-sentencing rehabilitation in choosing a sentence below the Guidelines. The district court, under a new judge, increased Pepper's sentence significantly and sent him back to prison after he had been out for several years. Pepper argued that this was improper because post-sentencing rehabilitation is an appropriate factor to consider during resentencing, and the new judge violated the "law of the case" doctrine by not following part of the previous judge's determination. In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether post-sentence rehabilitation is a proper factor to consider in resentencing, and whether the law of the case doctrine applies to Pepper's appeal.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    There is a conflict among the United States Courts of Appeals regarding a defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation and whether it can support a downward sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Whether a federal district judge can consider a defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation as a permissible factor supporting a sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) after Gall v. United States? Whether as a sentencing consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), post-sentencing rehabilitation should be treated the same as post-offense rehabilitation. When a district court judge is removed from resentencing a defendant after remand, and a new judge is assigned, is the new judge obligated under the doctrine of the "law of the case" to follow sentencing findings issued by the original judge that had been previously affirmed on appeal?

    In 2003, Petitioner Jason Pepper was charged with and pled guilty to a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. See U.S. v. Pepper, 412 F.3d 995, 996 (8th Cir.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Submit for publication
    0

    Peugh v. United States

    Marvin Peugh was convicted of fraud for actions taken in 1999 and 2000. The 1998 Sentencing Guidelines recommended a 37- to 46-month sentence, while the 2009 Sentencing Guidelines recommended a 70- to 87-month sentence for Peugh’s conviction. After receiving a 70-month sentence under the 2009 Guidelines, Peugh asserts that using the 2009 Guidelines retroactively increased his punishment in violation of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The United States counters that the Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory and that sentencing ultimately rests with a judge’s discretion, deferring to their knowledge of the case and their own penal philosophy. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Peugh’s sentence; however, eight other courts of appeals would have directed the trial court to consult the 1998 Guidelines. This case is important to ensure consistent sentencing principles, even if particular sentences may vary. The notion that everyone should receive the same sentence for the same crime is a good theory, but other factors often cause a disparity in punishment.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual directs a court to “use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced” unless “the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.” Eight courts of appeals have held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated where retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines creates a significant risk of a higher sentence. In the decision below, however, the Seventh Circuit has held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is never violated by retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines because the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The question presented is:

    Does a sentencing court violate the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the newer Guidelines create a significant risk that the defendant will receive a longer sentence?

    top

    Issue

    Does using Sentencing Guidelines promulgated after the time of a convicted defendant’s crime in sentencing that defendant violate the Constitution’s ban on retroacti

    Written by

    Edited by

    Additional Resources
    Submit for publication
    0

    Pulsifer v. United States

    Issues

    Is the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C § 3553(f)(1)—which allows reduced sentences for certain criminal defendants—unavailable only for defendants who, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, have more than four criminal history points, a prior three point offense and a prior nonviolent two point offense, or are defendants ineligible if they meet even one of the listed categories?

    This case asks the court to analyze 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), which establishes which criminal defendants can receive reduced sentences under the federal “safety valve” provision and determine whether a defendant is ineligible for safety valve relief only when they meet all three of § 3553(f)(1)’s listed criteria, or if they become ineligible after meeting even one of the three criteria. Pulsifer argues that all three listed criteria must be met for the defendant to be disqualified from safety valve relief, because the “and” which connects the three offense categories is used in the joint sense and bundles the three offense categories together. Pulsifer points to the plain meaning of the statute and Congress’s intent to introduce lenity in sentencing for some criminal defendants. In opposition, the United States argues that the “and” is distributive in this context and effectively functions as an “or”. Therefore, the United States argues, a defendant is disqualified from safety valve relief if they meet even one of the three offense criteria. The United States further maintains that a distributive “and” is required for a proper reading because reading the statute otherwise would render its text arbitrary and redundant. The United States also posits that a distributive “and” would protect the general public from habitual offenders and satisfy Congress’s goal of combating recidivism. This case touches on important questions regarding sentencing guidelines for drug offenses, leniency in sentencing, and the interpretation of federal sentencing statutes.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).

    In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act. Brief for Petitioner, Pulsifier at 8. This Act altered statutes relating to “safety valve” relief, which permits courts to issue sentences below the statutory minimum for defendants who meet certain criteria.

    Additional Resources

    Submit for publication
    0

    Rita v. United States

    Issues

    1) Is the minimum sentence, within the range of sentences set out for a particular crime by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, reasonable when relevant factors suggest that a reduced sentence may be appropriate?

    2) If an offender’s sentence is within the range of sentences set out for a particular crime by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, may a court of appeals approve this sentence without considering other relevant factors?

    3) If the appeals court may approve a sentence without considering other relevant factors, may the sentencing court give a sentence without explaining the roll that these relevant factors played in the sentencing decision?

     

    Victor Rita, a 25-year military veteran, was convicted of making false statements to a grand jury. At sentencing, Rita argued that his distinguished military service, his likelihood of being targeted in prison and his physical ailments justified a more lenient sentence than those set out in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. A District Court judge determined that he should receive the minimum sentence set fourth in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for his conviction. Upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals expressed its view that a within-guideliness sentence was presumptively reasonable and upheld Rita’s sentence. In reviewing this case, the Supreme Court will clarify the role that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are to play in sentencing decisions.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    1) Was the District Court’s choice of within-guidelines sentence reasonable?

    2) In making that determination, is it consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to accord a presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentences?

    3) If so, can that presumption justify a sentence imposed without an explicit analysis by the district court of the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and any other factors that might justify a lesser sentence?

    In 2003 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms commenced an investigation of InterOrdnance, a gun dealing business. Brief for United States at 2. The Bureau determined that InterOrdnance brand “parts kits,” which could be assembled into PPSH 41 World War II rifle replicas, should qualify as “machine guns.” Brief for Petitioner at 2.

    Submit for publication
    0

    Tapia v. United States

    Issues

    May a judge imprison a defendant, or sentence a defendant to a longer prison term, in order for the defendant to participate in a rehabilitation program?

     

    Alejandra Tapia was convicted of smuggling illegal aliens and sentenced to fifty-one months in prison. At her sentencing, the district court factored in her history of substance abuse in its decision to give her a sentence beyond the minimum term so that she could enter and complete an in-custody drug rehabilitation program. Tapia appealed her sentence to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision. Citing a circuit split, Tapia appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to determine whether it was proper for the district court judge to cite Tapia's rehabilitative needs in ordering a longer prison sentence. Petitioner Tapia contends that the plain meaning of the Sentencing Reform Act and the legislative history behind this Act confirm that rehabilitation is an inappropriate consideration in prison sentencing. The United States agrees with Tapia and urges vacating the lower court decision. Writing as amicus curiae by invitation of the Supreme Court, Professor Stephanos Bibas asserts that under the Sentencing Reform Act, district courts may properly consider the rehabilitative potential of in-prison targeted treatment programs when determining a prison sentence. Ultimately, this decision will impact when a district court may use incarceration to punish defendants and may also affect particular groups of defendants sentenced to incarceration.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    May a district court give a defendant a longer prison sentence to promote rehabilitation, as the Eighth and Ninth Circuits have held, or is such a factor prohibited, as the Second, Third, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have held?

    Alejandra Tapia was arrested while crossing into California from Mexico after a border officer found her smuggling two illegal aliens in her vehicle’s modified gas tank. See Brief for Petitioner, Alejandra Tapia at 2; 

    Written by

    Edited by

    Submit for publication
    0
    Subscribe to Federal Sentencing Guidelines