Opinion ID: 2967632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Language and Structure of the Guidelines

Text: The guidelines establish a process for selecting an appropriate sentence based on a defendant’s criminal history and the relevant conduct associated with the offense of conviction and the ensuing investigation and prosecution. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1. The rules regarding grouping and consecutive sentences apply in different phases of this process. The grouping rules apply to the calculation of an offense level based on relevant conduct.4 These rules 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all of our guideline citations are to the 1994 Guidelines Manual. 4 In assigning an offense level, the district court begins with a base offense level and then considers adjustments based on factors specified in the guidelines (such as possession of a weapon or the defendant’s role in the offense) and departures, some grounds for which are set forth in Chapter 5, Part K. UNITED STATES v. CHASE 5 operate to accomplish two key objectives of the Sentencing Reform Act: (1) the avoidance of double punishment for what is in essence the same criminal conduct (e.g., a conspiracy offense and a substantive offense that was the sole object of the conspiracy . . . ), and (2) an incremental increase in punishment for each offense of conviction that embodies significant additional criminal conduct. United States v. Watford, 894 F.2d 665, 669 (4th Cir. 1990). The rules achieve these goals by consolidating related offenses into groups and assigning a combined offense level based on the components of each group, the number of groups, and the relative offense levels assigned to each group. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1-3D1.4. The choice between concurrent and consecutive sentences arises later, when the court imposes a specific sentence. The court must select an appropriate term of imprisonment by consulting the sentencing table set forth in Chapter 5, Part A, which prescribes a guideline range based on the defendant’s final offense level and criminal history category. The court must then refer to the stacking rule, § 5G1.2, if (i) the defendant has been convicted of multiple offenses and (ii) the total punishment—i.e., the point within the guideline range designated by the district court as the appropriate term of imprisonment—exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense carrying the greatest penalty. In that event, the court must impose consecutive sentences to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d). Otherwise, § 5G1.2 mandates concurrent sentences in the absence of statutory requirements to the contrary. As this discussion illustrates, grouping and stacking are separate concepts relevant in different stages of the sentencing process. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive; that is, as a purely logical matter, there is no obstacle to stacking a defendant’s sentences for grouped offenses. Neither does any language in the grouping rules or § 5G1.2 prohibit consecutive sentences for grouped offenses. Indeed, we consider it significant that § 5G1.2 makes no distinction between grouped offenses and offenses in separate groups. The only language that even suggests a prohibition against stacked sentences for grouped offenses appears in the introduction to the 6 UNITED STATES v. CHASE grouping rules, which states that counts that are grouped together are treated as constituting a single offense for purposes of the guidelines. U.S.S.G. ch. 3, pt. D, intro. comment. It is clear from the context, however, that this language does not control the choice between concurrent and consecutive sentences. The grouping rules apply only to offense-level computations, not to the other components of the sentencing process. This is shown with particular clarity in the illustrations following U.S.S.G. § 3D1.5, which discuss the proper application of the grouping rules without any reference to total punishment. Moreover, the single offense contemplated in the commentary is not any individual count of conviction, but rather a hypothetical aggregate offense embracing all relevant conduct. In this respect, the treatment of grouped convictions as a single offense corresponds to the statutory treatment of multiple sentences as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3584(c) (West 2000). Thus, we do not construe the single offense language of this commentary to preclude stacking of grouped offenses. Our understanding of the relevant guidelines is reinforced by material added to the Guidelines Manual after Chase’s first sentencing hearing. Specifically, the commentary following U.S.S.G. § 2P1.2 expressly provides for consecutive sentences for grouped offenses. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2P1.2, comment. (n.2) (2001). While this does not conclusively resolve the issue, it tends to confirm that grouping and stacking are not inherently incompatible.