Source: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/787
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 08:39:05
Document Index: 648567830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§2', '§5', '§1', '§5', '§1', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§1', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§1', '§5', '§1', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§1', '§5', '§2', '§5', '§5']

787 | United States Sentencing Commission
AMENDMENT 787
Amendment: The Commentary to §2L1.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by redesignating Note 8 as Note 9 and by inserting after Note 7 the following new Note 8:
“8. Departure Based on Time Served in State Custody.—In a case in which the defendant is located by immigration authorities while the defendant is serving time in state custody, whether pre- or post-conviction, for a state offense, the time served is not covered by an adjustment under §5G1.3(b) and, accordingly, is not covered by a departure under §5K2.23 (Discharged Terms of Imprisonment). See §5G1.3(a). In such a case, the court may consider whether a departure is appropriate to reflect all or part of the time served in state custody, from the time immigration authorities locate the defendant until the service of the federal sentence commences, that the court determines will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. Any such departure should be fashioned to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.
Such a departure should be considered only in cases where the departure is not likely to increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant. In determining whether such a departure is appropriate, the court should consider, among other things, (A) whether the defendant engaged in additional criminal activity after illegally reentering the United States; (B) the seriousness of any such additional criminal activity, including (1) whether the defendant used violence or credible threats of violence or possessed a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induced another person to do so) in connection with the criminal activity, (2) whether the criminal activity resulted in death or serious bodily injury to any person, and (3) whether the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the criminal activity; and (C) the seriousness of the defendant’s other criminal history.”.
The Commentary to §2X5.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by inserting after “§5G1.3 (Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject to an Undischarged Term of Imprisonment” the following: “or Anticipated State Term of Imprisonment”.
“(c) If subsection (a) does not apply, and a state term of imprisonment is anticipated to result from another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the anticipated term of imprisonment.”.
The Commentary to §5G1.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 2(A) by striking “(i)” and by striking “; and (ii) has resulted in an increase in the Chapter Two or Three offense level for the instant offense”;
“3. Application of Subsection (c).—Subsection (c) applies to cases in which the federal court anticipates that, after the federal sentence is imposed, the defendant will be sentenced in state court and serve a state sentence before being transferred to federal custody for federal imprisonment. In such a case, where the other offense is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the anticipated term of imprisonment.”;
and in Note 4 (as so redesignated), in the heading, by striking “(c)” and inserting “(d)”; in each of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) by striking “(c)” each place such term appears and inserting “(d)”; and in subparagraph (E) by striking “subsection (c)” both places such term appears and inserting “subsection (d)”, and by striking “§5G1.3 (c)” and inserting “§5G1.3(d)”.
Reason for Amendment: This multi-part amendment addresses certain cases in which the defendant is subject to another term of imprisonment, such as an undischarged term of imprisonment or an anticipated term of imprisonment. The guideline generally applicable to undischarged terms of imprisonment is §5G1.3 (Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject to an Undischarged Term of Imprisonment).
Section 5G1.3 identifies three categories of cases in which a federal defendant is also subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. First, there are cases in which the federal offense was committed while the defendant was serving the undischarged term of imprisonment (including work release, furlough, or escape status). In these cases, the federal sentence is to be imposed consecutively to the remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment. See §5G1.3(a). Second, assuming subsection (a) does not apply, there are cases in which the conduct involved in the undischarged term of imprisonment is related to the conduct involved in the federal offense — specifically, the offense for which the defendant is serving an undischarged term of imprisonment is relevant conduct under subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) — and was the basis for an increase in the offense level under Chapter Two or Chapter Three. In these cases, the court is directed to adjust the federal sentence to account for the time already served on the undischarged term of imprisonment (if the Bureau of Prisons will not itself provide credit for that time already served) and is further directed to run the federal sentence concurrently with the remainder of the sentence for the undischarged term of imprisonment. See §5G1.3(b). Finally, in all other cases involving an undischarged state term of imprisonment, the court may impose the federal sentence concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively, to achieve a reasonable punishment for the federal offense. See §5G1.3(c), p.s.
Within the category of cases covered by subsection (b), where the conduct involved in the undischarged term of imprisonment is related to the federal offense conduct, the Commission considered whether the benefit of subsection (b) should continue to be limited to cases in which the offense conduct related to the undischarged term of imprisonment resulted in a Chapter Two or Three increase. The Commission determined that this limitation added complexity to the guidelines and may lead to unwarranted disparities. For example, a federal drug trafficking defendant who is serving an undischarged state term of imprisonment for a small amount of a controlled substance that is relevant conduct to the federal offense may not receive the benefit of subsection (b) because the amount of the controlled substance may not be sufficient to increase the offense level under Chapter Two. In contrast, a federal drug trafficking defendant who is serving an undischarged state term of imprisonment for a large amount of a controlled substance that is relevant conduct to the federal offense may be more likely to receive the benefit of subsection (b) because the amount of the controlled substance may be more likely to increase the offense level under Chapter Two. The amendment amends §5G1.3(b) to require a court to adjust the sentence and impose concurrent sentences in any case in which the prior offense is relevant conduct under the provisions of §1B1.3(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3), regardless of whether the conduct from the prior offense formed the basis for a Chapter Two or Chapter Three increase. The Commission determined that this amendment will simplify the operation of §5G1.3(b) and will also address concerns that the requirement that the relevant conduct increase the offense level under Chapters Two or Three is somewhat arbitrary.
Second, the amendment addresses cases in which there is an anticipated, but not yet imposed, state term of imprisonment that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). This amendment creates a new subsection (c) at §5G1.3 that directs the court to impose the sentence for the instant federal offense to run concurrently with the anticipated but not yet imposed period of imprisonment if §5G1.3(a) does not apply.
This amendment is a further response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012). Last year, the Commission amended the Background Commentary to §5G1.3 to provide heightened awareness of the court’s authority under Setser. See USSG App. C, Amend. 776 (effective November 1, 2013). In Setser, the Supreme Court held that a federal sentencing court has the authority to order that a federal term of imprisonment run concurrent with, or consecutive to, an anticipated but not yet imposed state sentence. This amendment reflects the Commission’s determination that the concurrent sentence benefits of subsection (b) of §5G1.3 should be available not only in cases in which the state sentence has already been imposed at the time of federal sentencing (as subsection (b) provides), but also in cases in which the state sentence is anticipated but has not yet been imposed, as long as the other criteria in subsection (b) are satisfied (i.e., the state offense is relevant conduct under subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3, and subsection (a) of §5G1.3 does not apply). By requiring courts to impose a concurrent sentence in these cases, the amendment reduces disparities between defendants whose state sentences have already been imposed and those whose state sentences have not yet been imposed. The amendment also promotes certainty and consistency.
Third, the amendment addresses certain cases in which the defendant is an alien and is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. The amendment provides a new departure provision in §2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States) for cases in which the defendant is located by immigration authorities while the defendant is in state custody, whether pre- or post- conviction, for a state offense unrelated to the federal illegal reentry offense. In such a case, the time served is not covered by an adjustment under §5G1.3(b) and, accordingly, is not covered by a departure under §5K2.23 (Discharged Terms of Imprisonment). The new departure provision states that, in such a case, the court may consider whether a departure is appropriate to reflect all or part of the time served in state custody for the unrelated offense, from the time federal immigration authorities locate the defendant until the service of the federal sentence commences, that the court determines will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. The new departure provision also sets forth factors for the court to consider in determining whether to provide such a departure, and states that a departure should be considered only if the departure will not increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant.
This amendment addresses concerns that the amount of time a defendant serves in state custody after being located by immigration authorities may be somewhat arbitrary. Several courts have recognized a downward departure to account for the delay between when the defendant is “found” by immigration authorities and when the defendant is brought into federal custody. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez‑Rodriguez, 161 F.3d 556, 563–64 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming downward departure on the basis that, because of the delay in proceeding with the illegal reentry case, the defendant lost the opportunity to serve a greater portion of his state sentence concurrently with his illegal reentry sentence); United States v. Barrera‑Saucedo, 385 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that “it is permissible for a sentencing court to grant a downward departure to an illegal alien for all or part of time served in state custody from the time immigration authorities locate the defendant until he is taken into federal custody”); see also United States v. Los Santos, 283 F.3d 422, 428–29 (2d Cir. 2002) (departure appropriate if the delay was either in bad faith or unreasonable). The amendment provides guidance to the courts in the determination of an appropriate sentence in such a case.