Source: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/811
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 07:15:48
Document Index: 400044552

Matched Legal Cases: ['§5', '§ 994', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§ 994', '§ 3553', '§5', '§5', '§5']

811 | United States Sentencing Commission
AMENDMENT 811
Amendment: The Commentary to §5C1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by redesignating Notes 4 through 9 as Notes 5 through 10, respectively; and by inserting the following new Note 4:
“4. If the defendant is a nonviolent first offender and the applicable guideline range is in Zone A or B of the Sentencing Table, the court should consider imposing a sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment, in accordance with subsection (b) or (c)(3). See 28 U.S.C. § 994(j). For purposes of this application note, a ‘nonviolent first offender’ is a defendant who has no prior convictions or other comparable judicial dispositions of any kind and who did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon in connection with the offense of conviction. The phrase ‘comparable judicial dispositions of any kind’ includes diversionary or deferred dispositions resulting from a finding or admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere and juvenile adjudications.”.
The Commentary to §5F1.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by striking “Electronic monitoring is an appropriate means of surveillance and ordinarily should be used in connection with home detention” and inserting “Electronic monitoring is an appropriate means of surveillance for home detention”; and by striking “alternative means of surveillance may be used so long as they are as effective as electronic monitoring” and inserting “alternative means of surveillance may be used if appropriate”.
The Commentary to §5F1.2 captioned “Background” is amended by striking “The Commission has concluded that the surveillance necessary for effective use of home detention ordinarily requires electronic monitoring” and inserting “The Commission has concluded that electronic monitoring is an appropriate means of surveillance for home detention”; and by striking “the court should be confident that an alternative form of surveillance will be equally effective” and inserting “the court should be confident that an alternative form of surveillance is appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the defendant’s case”.
Section 5H1.3 is amended by striking “See §5C1.1, Application Note 6” and inserting “See §5C1.1, Application Note 7”.
Section 5H1.4 is amended by striking “See §5C1.1, Application Note 6” and inserting “See §5C1.1, Application Note 7”.
Reason for Amendment: The amendment adds a new application note to the Commentary at §5C1.1 (Imposition of a Term of Imprisonment), which states that if a defendant is a “nonviolent first offender and the applicable guideline range is in Zone A or B of the Sentencing Table, the court should consider imposing a sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment.” This new application note is consistent with the statutory language in 28 U.S.C. § 994(j) regarding the “general appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment” for “a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense” and cites the statutory provision in support. It also is consistent with a recent Commission recidivism study, which demonstrated that offenders with zero criminal history points have a lower recidivism rate than offenders with one criminal history point, and that offenders with zero criminal history points and no prior contact with the criminal justice system have an even lower recidivism rate. See Tracey Kyckelhahn & Trishia Cooper, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders at 6–9 (2017).
Where permitted by statute, the Guidelines Manual provides for non-incarceration sentences for offenders in Zones A and B of the Sentencing Table. Zone A (in which all sentencing ranges are zero to six months regardless of criminal history category) permits the full spectrum of sentencing options: (1) a fine only; (2) a term of probation only; (3) probation with conditions of confinement (home detention, community confinement, or intermittent confinement); (4) a “split sentence” (a term of imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release with condition of confinement that substitutes for a portion of the guideline term); or (5) a term of imprisonment only. Zone B (which includes sentencing ranges that have a low-end of one month and a high-end of 15 months, and vary by criminal history category) also authorizes non-prison sentences. However, Zone B sentencing options are more restrictive, authorizing (1) probation with conditions of confinement; (2) a “split sentence”; or (3) a term of imprisonment only. Consistent with the statutory mandate in section 994(j), the application note is intended to serve as a reminder to courts to consider imposing non-incarceration sentences for a defined class of “nonviolent first offenders” whose applicable guideline ranges are in Zones A or B of the Sentencing Table.
For purposes of the new application note, the amendment defines a “nonviolent first offender” as a defendant who (1) has no prior convictions or other comparable judicial dispositions of any kind; and (2) did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon in connection with the offense. It explains that “comparable judicial dispositions of any kind” includes “diversionary or deferred dispositions resulting from a finding or admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere and juvenile adjudications.”
The amendment adopts language from the statutory and guidelines “safety-valve” provisions to exclude offenders who “use[d] violence or credible threats of violence or possess[ed] a firearm or other dangerous weapon in connection with the offense.” See 18 U.S.C § 3553(f)(2); USSG §5C1.2(a)(2). This real-offense definition of “violent” offense avoids the complicated application of the “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense qualifies as “violent.” See United States v. Starks, 861 F.3d 306, 324 (1st Cir. 2017) (describing the “immensely complicated analysis required by the categorical approach”); see also USSG §5C1.2, comment. (n.3) (noting that the determination of whether “the offense” was violent or involved a firearm requires a court to consider not only the offense of conviction but also “all relevant conduct”). It also ensures that only nonviolent offenders are covered by the new application note.
The amendment also deletes language from the commentary to §5F1.2 (Home Detention) that generally encouraged courts to use electronic monitoring (also called location monitoring) when home detention is made a condition of supervision, and instead instructs that electronic monitoring or any alternative means of surveillance may each be used, as “appropriate.” The goal of this change is to increase the use of probation with home detention as an alternative to incarceration. The Commission received testimony indicating that location monitoring is resource-intensive and otherwise demanding on probation officers. Additionally, it heard testimony that imposing location monitoring by default is inconsistent with the evidence-based “risk-needs-responsivity” (RNR) model of supervision and may be counterproductive for certain lower-risk offenders. For many low-risk offenders, less intensive surveillance methods (e.g., telephonic contact, video conference, unannounced home visits by probation officers) are sufficient to enforce home detention. The revised language would allow probation officers and courts to exercise discretion to use surveillance methods that they deem appropriate in light of evidence-based practices.