Source: https://katzjustice.com/protect-acts-mandatory-sentencing-is-unconstitutional/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:56:55+00:00

Document:
PROTECT Act's mandatory sentencing is unconstitutional | Jon Katz, P.C.
In 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which is Washingtonese for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003", as well as a bill title that would make many lawmakers fearful of the public backlash of refusing to vote for a bill with such a title (thus, the same fear by lawmakers of voting against the original version of the PATRIOT Act).
"A sentence that falls within the properly calculated advisory guideline range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2005). This does not mean, however, that a variance sentence is presumptively unreasonable. Such a ruling would transform an ‘effectively advisory’ system, Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757, into an effectively mandatory one. Rather, in reviewing a variance sentence, this court must consider — in light of the factors enumerated in § 3553(a) and any relevant guideline provisions — whether the district court acted reasonably with respect to (1) the imposition of a variance sentence, and (2) the extent of the variance. See id. at 765-66; United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005); cf. United States v. Hairston, 96 F.3d 102, 106-07 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that both the decision to depart and the extent of departure are subject to review for abuse of discretion).
U.S. v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433-34 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). Although the above-discussed Moreland decision agreed that a departure below the sentencing guidelines was justified for the defendant, the Fourth Circuit decided that the trial court had departed too much, concluding that "the district court committed ‘a clear error of judgment by arriving at a sentence outside the limited range of choice dictated by the facts of the case.’ Hawk v. Wing, 433 U.S. F.3d at 631 [8th Cir. 2006] (internal quotation marks omitted)." U.S. v. Moreland, 437 F.3d at 436. Consequently, the injustice of the federal sentencing guidelines — and the power of the Sentencing Commission’s unelected members — continues.

References: v. 
 § 3553
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.