Opinion ID: 3051516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sentencing disparity between crack and powder

Text: COCAINE [1] Crawford argues that the reports by the Sentencing Commission are supported by empirical research, while the Guidelines are based on speculations that “ha[ve] never held up to objective scrutiny,” and consequently, a district court should give more weight to the Commission’s reports and less weight to the Guidelines. Although the Supreme Court has since validated Crawford’s view, see Kimbrough, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. at 575 (“In formulating Guidelines ranges for crack cocaine offenses, . . . the Commission . . . did not take account of ‘empirical data and national experience.’ Indeed, the Commission itself has reported that the crack/powder disparity produces disproportionately harsh sanctions . . . for crack cocaine offenses . . . .” (citations omitted)), Kimbrough does not help Crawford’s case because he conceded during his re-sentencing hearing that the disparity does not actually affect his sentencing level. The judge asked during the hear- ing, “[a]ssuming the court is correct that [Crawford] qualifies as a career offender, if the conviction had been for powder instead of crack, wouldn’t we be in the same place?,” to which Crawford’s counsel responded by acknowledging that the base offense level calculation would be the same regardless of the powder cocaine versus crack cocaine distinction. Thus Kimbrough is unavailing to Crawford’s cause. 3206 UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD