IV 
108TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 478
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court of the United 
States should act expeditiously to resolve the confusion and inconsistency 
in the Federal criminal justice system caused by its decision in Blakely 
v. Washington, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JULY 22, 2004
Mr. COBLE (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SCOTT of 
Virginia, and Mr. CHABOT) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court 
of the United States should act expeditiously to resolve 
the confusion and inconsistency in the Federal criminal 
justice system caused by its decision in Blakely v. Wash-
ington, and for other purposes.
Whereas Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 
1984 to provide certainty and fairness in sentencing, 
avoid unwarranted disparities among defendants with 
similar records found guilty of similar offenses, and 
maintain sufficient flexibility to permit individualized sen-
tences when warranted; 
Whereas Congress established the United States Sentencing 
Commission as an independent commission in the Judi-
•HCON 478 IH 
cial branch of the United States to establish sentencing 
policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice sys-
tem that meet the purposes of sentencing and the core 
goals of the Sentencing Reform Act; 
Whereas Congress has prescribed both statutory minimum 
and statutory maximum penalties for certain offenses and 
the Sentencing Reform Act authorizes the Sentencing 
Commission to promulgate guidelines and establish sen-
tencing ranges for the use of a sentencing court in deter-
mining a sentence within the statutory minimum and 
maximum penalties prescribed by Congress; 
Whereas the statutory maximum penalty is the maximum 
penalty provided by the statute defining the offense of 
conviction, including any applicable statutory enhance-
ments, and not the upper end of the guideline sentencing 
range promulgated by the Sentencing Commission and 
determined to be applicable to a particular defendant; 
Whereas both Congress and the Sentencing Commission in-
tended the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to be applied 
as a cohesive and integrated whole, and not in a piece-
meal fashion; 
Whereas in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), 
the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the con-
stitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act and the Fed-
eral Sentencing Guidelines against separation-of-powers 
and non-delegation challenges; 
Whereas in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), 
the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines of 
the State of Washington violated a defendant’s Sixth 
Amendment right to trial by jury;
•HCON 478 IH 
Whereas despite Mistretta and numerous other Supreme 
Court opinions over the past 15 years affirming the con-
stitutionality of various aspects of the Guidelines, the 
Blakely decision has raised concern about the continued 
constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; 
Whereas the Blakely decision has created substantial confu-
sion and uncertainty in the Federal criminal justice sys-
tem; 
Whereas the lower Federal courts have reached inconsistent 
positions on the applicability of Blakely to the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines; 
Whereas there is a split among the circuit courts of appeal 
as to the applicability of Blakely to the Federal Sen-
tencing Guidelines, and the Second Circuit Court of Ap-
peals has certified the question to the Supreme Court; 
Whereas the orderly administration of justice in pending and 
resolved trials, sentencings and plea negotiations has 
been affected by the uncertainty surrounding the applica-
bility of the Blakely decision to the Federal Sentencing 
Guidelines; 
Whereas the current confusion in the lower Federal courts 
has and will continue to produce results that disserve the 
core principles underlying the Sentencing Reform Act; 
Whereas two and one-half weeks after the Supreme Court 
issued its decision in Blakely, the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee convened a hearing to consider the implications of 
the decision for the Federal criminal justice system; and 
Whereas the Department of Justice, the Sentencing Commis-
sion, and others advised the Committee that corrective 
legislation was not necessary at this time, with the hope 
that the Supreme Court would clarify the applicability of
•HCON 478 IH 
its Blakely decision to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 
in an expeditious manner: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Su-
preme Court of the United States should act expeditiously 
to resolve the current confusion and inconsistency in the 
Federal criminal justice system by promptly considering 
and ruling on the constitutionality of the Federal Sen-
tencing Guidelines.
Æ