Document: 503 U.S. 193 112 S.Ct. 1112 117 L.Ed.2d 341 Joseph WILLIAMS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 90-6297. Argued Nov. 6, 1991. Decided March 9, 1992. Syllabus Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, United States Commission has promulgated Guidelines establishing sentencing ranges for different categories federal offenses and defendants. The allows a district court to depart from guideline range under certain circumstances, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), provides limited appellate review sentences, requiring remand resentencing if sentence (1) was imposed in violation law or "as result an incorrect application" Guidelines, 3742(f)(1), (2) is unreasonable departure applicable range, 3742(f)(2). Petitioner Williams convicted Federal District Court possession firearm by felon. someone his criminal history category at offense level 24 months. However, departed upward that sentenced him 27 months' imprisonment, determining inadequate because it did not include two convictions were too old be counted Guidelines' calculation reflect several prior arrests. Appeals agreed reliable information indicating more extensive conduct than reflected Williams' category, but rejected Court's reliance upon arrests, finding prohibit basing on arrest record alone had adequately explained factual basis its use those arrests as ground departure. Although used both proper improper factors justify departure, affirmed reasonable light standing alone. Held: 1. A reviewing may, appropriate affirm which court's based valid invalid factors. Pp. 197-202. (a) Construing plain language Act, application factor already fully considered or, this case, expressly An "incorrect guidelines" occurs when prohibited either general policy statements regarding application, also authorized promulgate, 28 994(a)(2). statement authoritative guide meaning Guideline, error statement's interpretation could lead determination appropriate. 199-201. (b) When relies departing may solely independent assessment In order give full effect 3742(f)(1) 3742(f)(2), must separate inquiries each provision determine whether required. It focus one exclusion other. 201-202. (c) argument automatically required rectify any rejected. only "imposed i.e., would have been error. party challenging bears initial burden showing relied sentencing, proving determinative decision. Rather, once appeals finds misapplied unless determines harmless. 202-203. (d) If long satisfied reasonableness looks amount extent grounds departing. assessing reasonableness, examine imposing stated reasons sentence's imposition. 3742(e). can "reasonable" even some justifying are invalid, provided remaining sufficient departure's magnitude. P. 203-204. (e) decisions does alter traditional deference owes exercise discretion, selection within decision left court. Thus, factors, since court, apprised errors chosen sentence. 204-206. 2. This declines Appeals' reliability outdated convictions, propriety consideration nonsimilar clearly presented petition certiorari briefed party. 205-206. 3. case remanded of" erroneous cannot ascertained concluded same without relying simply 206. 910 F.2d 1574, vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. WHITE, filed dissenting opinion, KENNEDY, Kenneth H. Hanson, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Amy L. Wax, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 amended, 3551 et seq., §§ 991-998 (Act), created empowered promulgate guidelines permits presumptive prescribed circumstances. 3553(b). sentences ensure Guidelines. 3742. we consider scope review, range. 2 * Williams, previously felon, subject investigation conducted Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms 1988 1989. He indicted after jury trial Western Wisconsin while felon 922(g)(1). 3 presentence report assigned V. App. 48. Combined with Ibid. pursuant 4A1.3 Manual, increase classification "reliable information" indicates seriousness defendant's background propensity future conduct. Commission, Manual 4A1.3, p. s. (Nov.1991). determined calculation, see USSG 4A1.2(e)(1) (Nov.1991), 53-54. Citing these looked next highest 21 Id., then imprisonment selecting high end he threatened undercover agent case. Id. 55-56.1 4 Seventh Circuit upheld conviction 1574 (1990). that, circumstances category. 1579. rejected, however, resulting prosecution. allow "prior similar adult conviction" warranted, they asserted "the indicated facts apart itself," F.2d, 1580, held 5 invalidated mentioned depart, nevertheless precedent v. Franklin, 902 501 (CA7), cert. denied, sub nom. Mann States, 498 ----, 111 274, 229 (1990), uses 508-509. Applying despite considering record, "correctly Mr. criminality properly relevant evidence justified rather modest sentence." 1580. 6 We granted certiorari, 499 1305, 113 240 (1991), resolve conflict among Circuits Compare Zamarripa, 905 337, 342 (CA10 1990) (when resentencing); Hernandez-Vasquez, 884 1314, 1315-1316 (CA9 1989) (same), 501, 508-509 (CA7) still factors), (1990); Rodriguez, 882 1059, 1066-1068 (CA6 493 1084, 110 1144, 107 1048 Hummer, 916 186, 195, n. 8 (CA4 1608, 670 (1991). II 7 set "there exists aggravating mitigating circumstance kind, degree, taken into formulating guidelines." defendant file appeal 3742(a). Similarly, Government downward 3742(b). For types appeal, 3742(f) delineates following narrow review: 9 "If sentence— 10 "(1) guidelines, shall further proceedings such instructions considers appropriate; 11 "(2) outside there no plainly unreasonable, state specific conclusions and— 12 "(A) [by defendant], aside 13 "(B) low Government], 14 "(3) described paragraph (2), A. 15 before us, urges misapplication standard means invalidated, always order. dispute appropriately characterized contends depart. 16 agree parties echo Act's instruction "not Commission" Ch. 1, Pt. A4(b), s., 5K2.0 (both quoting 3553(b)). governing statute, conclude 17 Congress defined "guidelines" commission 994(a)." 998(c). Section 994(a) grants authority "guidelines," 994(a)(1), "general guidelines," dissent draws distinction between "actual" "interpret[ ]" "explain[ them; dissent's view, former incorrectly applied 3742(f)(1). Post, 211-212. But say distinct their unaffected statements. Where, here, prohibits taking specified action, guideline. interpreting event, 3742(f)(1).2 Table, all derived, reviewed though Table itself officially designated "guideline." See USSG, ch. 5, part Because specifies resentencing: statute 19 do believe contrary conclusion supported declarations reviewable 209-210,212-213. unable find indication departures exclusively (considered statements) govern decisions. provisions, therefore, obliged inquiries. First, Guidelines? so, concludes should proceed second step: unreasonably range? 20 argues whenever disagree. call every time might misapply Guidelines; rather, intended results wrong Accordingly, decide although additional decided concludes, whole, harmless, affect imposed. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(a). B 22 defending persuades absent factor, directs well imposition particular thus given magnitude C 23 interprets "reasonableness" 3742(f)(2) sole posits two-step test reasonableness: post 218, 218-220. our inquiry, supra 201-202, agrees "[w]here enunciated support found invalid," "must case," necessary per se unreasonable," ibid., position requires 219, so act, 203. practical effect, divergence own degree made aware established decisions, appeals' discretion. development regime changed view except specifically directed "it role substitute judgment appropriateness Solem Helm, 463 277, 290, 16, 103 3001, 3009, 77 637 (1983). 25 Significantly, amended 1986 delete provisions correct Criminal Law Procedure Technical Amendments 1986, Pub.L. 99-646, 73, 100 Stat. 3592 (1986). That action confirms belief prerogative appeals, determine, first instance, III 26 At oral petitioner's counsel contended therefore resulted Tr. Oral Arg. 42-43. Counsel argued rely prevented years old. 43. explicitly authorize base "evidence misconduct," 4A1.2, comment., 8, divided whether, implication, convictions. Compare, e.g., Aymelek, 926 64, 72-73 (CA1 1991) (nonsimilar departure); Russell, 1439, 1444 (same) Leake, 908 550, 554 (upward never convictions). decline understated background. 1578-1579. 3742(f), other invalid. ascertain vacate below affirming sentence, ordered. whom KENNEDY joins, dissenting. 29 Title 3553(b),1 1984 seq. 991-998, defendant, impose kind referred 3553(a)(4)2 issued "unless described." departs 3553(a)(4), 3553(c).3 appeal. 3742(a)(3).4 30 inadequately depicted three reasons, accordingly petitioner appealed. acceptable, claims resentencing. 31 Whether turns full: 32 "(f) Decision disposition.—If 33 34 35 subsection (a), 36 37 (b), 38 39 arriving majority Justices "an "outside range," Also being deal subsections, orders Appeals. 40 my where governed alone, appears Commission: "Pursuant select If, presents atypical features, specify correctly applied. 3742." A2, p.s. (Nov.1991) (emphasis added). 41 disposed 3742(e), law; guidelines; (3) unreasonable; (4) unreasonable.5 purposes disposition (f) groups last together. error, (e), identifies four wholly distinguishable error—a nuance overlooked Subsections (e)(2) (e)(3), read together, address possible errors, exclusive other: deals range; (e)(3) range.6 Indeed, majority—as briefs merits response request supplemental briefing—fails define what phrase means. Absent understanding, impossible apply hope meeting Congress' intent. 42 here faulty statement, p.s., deciding otherwise Policy statements, contained 3742(e)(2) 998(c), section distinguished "for case." 994(a)(1). latter "regarding aspect implementation" furthering Act. Only 994(a)(1) play direct points pertaining reduced A, drawn.7 follows "application refers construction range.8 43 Even numbered grouped identical actual 1B1.6, purpose explaining how and—significantly—"may provide guidance 1B1.7. While 3553(a)(5), legislative explicit not, itself, 44 "It noted inconsistent consistent not. undermine value is, instead, recognition nature difficult right review." S.Rep. 98-225, 167 (1983), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 3182, 3350 added; footnote omitted) (hereinafter S. Report).9 45 355710 equally clear regard: 46 "The judicial 3742 designed reduce materially unwarranted disparities giving providing mechanism assure inside Report 86, 3269 47 asserts took place case.11 As I explained, process applying not—and indeed not—identify claim involved Instead, declare invalidly account " 'incorrect application' Guidelines," referring 5K2.0, which, says, statute.12 Ante, 5. Since merely refer majority's confusion about import. "guidelines"—and issue p.s.—qualify records, erred records explanation. To equates misinterpretation dealt erroneously. Such signifies nothing more. "prohibits action" thereby "is guideline," ante, 201, remains fact permit mere statement. supra, 212-213. 48 subsections guidelines. And alleged basis, "shall 3742(f)(3). much focused inquiry majority. mistaken identified, required.13 obtain relief (f)(1) insofar relates appellant demonstrate occurred affects range.14 49 Looking question derive "guideline" places issue, dealing considerations calculated warrant discretion construing way entitled (f)(1). 50 available unreasonable." guided 3742(e)(3), states 51 "(e) Consideration.—Upon 52 . 53 having regard for— 54 forth chapter 227 title; 55 3553(c). ." 56 Subsection (e)(3)(A) 3553(a), designating "factors sentence."15 assessed (e)(3)(B) arise directly findings [in range]." 3553(b); nn. supra. 57 Where supports it, stating conclusion. 13, supporting Not unconsidered warrants 3553(b) identified "should result" range.16 By generally variance ends greater six months 25%. 994(b)(2). flexibility check disparity. depends listed 3553(a) instance. These control made. surviving sentence.17 (a)(6)—"the need avoid defendants who guilty conduct"—takes added significance judging new long-reposed courts towards ultimate goal reform: promote fairness rationality, disparity, sentencing. 78, 150, 161; 991(b)(1). establish practice deemed "essential 151, 3334. departing, 3553(c)(2), "state reasons" concluding will apace, creating ready benchmark current offender disparate criminals crimes.18 sum, "while interpreted subsequent law, incorporation content broader warranted bare alone." Wilkins, Appellate Review, Wash. Lee L.Rev. 429, 444 (1989) (footnote omitted). 58 entries severe 1580 ruled, "a departure." (citing (CA7 1990)). old, crime—felon firearm.19 1580; p.s.; Schmude, 901 555, 559 1990). severity past, violence laid threats lives DEA agents families. conclusion, 3-month "despite noted, 59 validity sufficient. "to probe mind judge try portions she 508. assess 509. judgment. 60 respectfully dissent. Our reading transcript accord understanding post, 208. 212. believes includes "aggravating 218 (quoting But, consideration, official commentary Commission." appear consistency Commission's statements; go states: "(b) Application sentence.—The (a)(4) described. "(a) Factors sufficient, necessary, comply subsection. imposed, consider— "(4) kinds committed date sentenced. 3553(c), "(c) Statement open and, exceeds months, reason point (a)(4), 3742(a)(3), Appeal defendant.—A notice final fine term probation, supervised release maximum limiting condition probation 3563(b)(6) (b)(11) part, 3742(e) mirrors 3742(a), Government, Commentary Chairman Judge William Jr., Fourth Circuit, approach. 437-444 (1989). His discussion 3742(e)(3) (f)(2) pertain appeal." 441. controlling dictated approach nowhere recognizes possibility implicated carried day Circuit. Summers, 893 63, 64-67 (1990) (opinion J.). interrelationship 3553 compels 207-208. reference ultimately opposed misinterprets formally "can 3742(f)(1)." 200 What conclude, calculus constructing addressed 3742(e)(2). behind nature, role, 3553(c) similarly instructive: especially important. proposed 3742, above government important evaluation fact, fails returning "Sentences illegality legality sentences. cases claiming probably minor issues concerning characteristics discussed reasons." 80, 3263 "Review 3557. apparently stems parties' citation 1314 (per curiam ), 337 1990), proposition Be neither treated grounds. hold, purports explain, less cite, Nuno-Para, 877 1409, 1412-1414 1989), proposition. Zamarripa "cannot factor." 342. Nuno-Para discuss, explain Ninth "we hold improperly 1414 limited, infra, 217-220, Moreover, close outlined Tenth reveals conforms here. 339-340; White, 276, 277-278 1990); Diaz-Villafane, 874 43, (CA1), 862, 177, 133 Consequently, brought attention attempt concede prevent scrupulous statutes, lest disturb intent, expressed. cites: discussing type "intends suggestions courts. expects most prove likely 'unreasonable' fall suggested levels" Contrary 202-203, accommodate "harmless error" review. discloses "shall" originally enacted, "correct sentence" 98-473, 213(a), 98 2012. "[a]fter instances reversed, leaving court." L.Rev., 433; 3617. Deeming "harmless" conform mandate. Stephenson, 887 57, 62 (CA5 Goff 1086, 1151, 1054 unfortunate unnatural becomes quite complicated exercise, involve shifting "burdens" search subjective intent error." baldness assertion matched total lack opaque somehow factors." fodder later circuits, straightforward statute. Briefly recited, include, inter alia, offense, deterrence, public protection, pertinent avoidance disparities. 3553(a). emphasize unaccounted-for departure: formulation upper circumstance, lower all." 79, 3262. 439, 52. obliquely references broad 204-205. bound simple principle legal limits disturbed. Dorszynski 418 424, 431, 94 3042, 3047, 855 (1974); Gore 357 386, 393, 78 1280, 1284-1285, 1405 (1958). 150. unquestioned evolved near-absolute vested reform. now checked, exercise. situation face inadequate. substitution valid. precisely intends do. reigned loosened quotation passage, omits rule "[a]bsent authority" favoring wider U.S., S.Ct., 16. "adequately consider" leading departures, overall. 151; ("By monitoring analyzing doing thereto, over time, able refine permitted"). suggests played "selecting range" 197; 54-55. kept mind, recognized articulated beyond inadequate."

Category: 0