Opinion ID: 203422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pho and Kimbrough

Text: In Pho, we held that the district court erred as a matter of law when it constructed a new sentencing range based on the categorical substitution of a 20:1 crack-to-powder ratio for a 100:1 ratio embedded in the sentencing guidelines. 433 F.3d at 64. We explained that sentencing decisions must be done case by case and must be grounded in case-specific considerations, not in general disagreement with broad-based policies enunciated by Congress or the [Sentencing] Commission. Id. at 64-65. Our holding was thus limited to a rejection of a categorical, policy-based ratio substitution. We cautioned that we [did] not intend to diminish the discretion that, after Booker, district courts enjoy in sentencing matters or to suggest that, in a drug-trafficking case, the nature of the contraband and/or the severity of a projected guideline sentence may not be taken into account on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 65. In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had taken a far more restrictive approach than we had in Pho. The Fourth Circuit had held that a sentence `outside the guidelines range is per se unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.' Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 565 (quoting United States v. Kimbrough, 174 Fed.Appx. 798, 799 (4th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)). The Supreme Court rejected the Fourth Circuit's approach because it made the crack/powder disparity effectively mandatory. Id. at 564. The Court held instead that a sentencing judge may determine ... that, in a particular case, a within-Guidelines sentence is `greater than necessary' to serve the objectives of sentencing, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that [i]n making that determination, the judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses. Id. Although the Kimbrough Court listed Pho as one of the circuit court decisions that had taken the view that a sentencing court may not impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range based on its disagreement with the crack/powder disparity, Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 566 n. 4, we respectfully question that assessment. [7] Indeed, there has been widespread misunderstanding of Pho in this circuit. We rejected in Pho the categorical substitution by the sentencing judge of a lower ratio  effectively, a constructive guideline sentencing range  for all crack cocaine offenders. However, we expressly preserved the discretion of the sentencing judge to consider the nature of the contraband and/or the severity of a projected guideline sentence ... on a case-by-case basis. Pho, 433 F.3d at 65. This case-by-case, individualized analysis is precisely the approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Kimbrough. In detailing the method used by the sentencing court in Kimbrough, the Court approvingly noted that the [sentencing] court did not purport to establish a ratio of its own. Rather it appropriately framed its final determination in line with § 3553(a)'s overarching instruction to `impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary' to accomplish the sentencing goals advanced in § 3553(a)(2). 128 S.Ct. at 575. Thus, at its core, Pho is actually consistent with Kimbrough: both decisions emphasize the importance of individualized, case-by-case sentencing determinations, rather than a reliance on generalized ratios. As we recently explained, the Kimbrough Court's organic reading of section 3553(a) suggests that a sentencing judge should engage in a ... holistic inquiry, by considering a tapestry of factors, through which runs the thread of [the] overarching principle of parsimony. United States v. Rodriguez, 527 F.3d 221, 228 (1st Cir. 2008). After Kimbrough, it is clear that the undue harshness that may result from the 100:1 crack/powder ratio is properly considered as one of those factors woven into the tapestry as the district court considers what sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary in each individual case.