Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 186.0

524US1

Unit: $U79

[09-08-00 13:44:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 125 (1998)

141

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

be more speciﬁc, as cogently explained on another day by
today’s opinion writer:

“The special ‘mandatory minimum’ sentencing statute
says that anyone who ‘uses or carries’ a gun ‘during and
in relation to any . . . drug trafﬁcking crime’ must re-
ceive a mandatory ﬁve-year prison term added on to his
drug crime sentence.
18 U. S. C. § 924(c). At the same
time, the Sentencing Guidelines, promulgated under the
authority of a different statute, 28 U. S. C. § 994, provide
for a two-level (i. e., a 30% to 40%) sentence enhance-
ment where a ‘ﬁrearm . . . was possessed’ by a drug
offender, U. S. S. G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), unless the possession
clearly was not ‘connected with the [drug] offense.’ ”
McFadden, 13 F. 3d, at 467 (Breyer, C. J., dissenting).

In Muscarello’s case, for example, the underlying drug
crimes involved the distribution of 3.6 kilograms of mari-
juana, and therefore carried a base offense level of 12. See
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual
§ 2D1.1(a)(3) (Nov. 1995). After adjusting for Muscarello’s
acceptance of responsibility, see id., § 3E1.1(a), his ﬁnal of-
fense level was 10, placing him in the 6-to-12 month sentenc-
ing range. See id., ch. 5, pt. A. The two-level enhancement
for possessing a ﬁrearm, id., § 2D1.1(b)(1), would have in-
creased his ﬁnal offense level to 12 (a sentencing range of 10
to 16 months).
In other words, the less rigid (tailored to
“the seriousness of the drug crime,” McFadden, 13 F. 3d,
at 466) Guidelines regime would have added four months to
Muscarello’s prison time, in contrast to the ﬁve-year mini-
mum addition the Court’s reading of § 924(c)(1) mandates.1

1 The Sentencing Guidelines carry out “a major congressional effort to
create a fairly sophisticated . . . system that distinguishes among different
kinds of criminal behavior and punishes accordingly.” United States v.
McFadden, 13 F. 3d, at 467–468 (Breyer, C. J., dissenting). A “mandatory
minimum” statute deviates from the general regime Congress installed.
“Given the importance (to Congress) of the Guidelines system, . . . courts
should take care not to interpret [with unnecessary breadth] . . . deviations