Opinion ID: 789140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remedy Opinion

Text: 20 In the Remedy Opinion, the Court ruled that implementation of the Substantive Opinion required that two provisions of the SRA be sever[ed] and excise[d]. Remedy Opinion, ___ U.S. at ___, 125 S.Ct. at 764. These are subsection 3553(b)(1), mandating use of the Guidelines, and section 3742(e), which sets forth standards of review on appeal. Remedy Opinion, id. 21 Having severed and excised the SRA's standards governing review of sentences, the Court in the Remedy Opinion replaced them with a practical standard of review already familiar to appellate courts: review for `unreasonable [ness].' Id. at 765 (quoting subsection 3742(e)(3)). The Court pointed out that `[r]easonableness' standards are not foreign to sentencing law. Id. at 766. The SRA has required appellate courts to use the standard of reasonableness or, the opposite side of the same coin, unreasonableness, in two contexts. First, prior to a 2003 amendment, 7 subsection 3742(e)(3) instructed appellate courts reviewing a departure to determine whether the resulting sentence is unreasonable after considering various identified factors. Second, subsections 3742(a)(4), (b)(4), and (e)(4) instructed appellate courts to use the standard of plainly reasonable in reviewing a sentence imposed in the absence of an applicable guideline. 22 Although the most significant aspect of the Remedy Opinion is the excision of subsection 3553(b)(1), with the result that the use of the Guidelines to select a sentence is no longer mandatory, a critically important aspect of Booker/Fanfan is the preservation of the entirety of the SRA with the exception of only the two severed provisions. 8 As the Court noted in the Remedy Opinion, The remainder of the Act `function[s] independently.' Remedy Opinion, ___ U.S. at ___, 125 S.Ct. at 764 (citing Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684, 107 S.Ct. 1476, 94 L.Ed.2d 661 (1987)). Notably, the Court explained, Section 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth numerous factors that guide sentencing. Those factors in turn will guide appellate courts, as they have in the past, in determining whether a sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 766. 23