Opinion ID: 180585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Crack/Powder Sentencing Disparity

Text: The appellants argue that the district court erred procedurally and substantively when it chose not to treat the differences in crack and powder sentences as a mitigating factor, particularly when such sentences are measured against factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This argument is not persuasive. Under Booker, district courts are entitled to vary from the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine and powder cocaine based on a policy disagreement with the guidelines. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007); Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840, 844 (2009). But district courts are not required to disagree with the guidelines and accept a defendant’s argument that sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine should be on par. See United States v. Curb, No. 09‐2510, 2010 WL 4608381 at , — F.3d —, — (7th Cir. Nov. 16, 2010) (“We have never held that a district judge was required to reject the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to crack cocaine. A district judge’s reasoned agreement with an advisory sentencing guideline will not be deemed unreasonable on appeal.”), citing United States v. Scott, Nos. 09‐2834, 09‐2854, 09‐2912, 09‐3565, and 09‐3589 Page 4 555 F.3d 605, 610 (7th Cir. 2009) (“If a district court may deviate from the Guidelines based on its disagreement with the Sentencing Commission’s policy, it is equally within its authority to adhere to the Guidelines because it concurs with the policy judgment the Guidelines reflect.”). As a preliminary matter, the sentencing transcripts may be considered together because the appellants were members of a single conspiracy sentenced by one judge. While the judge gave individualized attention to each of the criminal defendants, he also considered the parties together as partners in the same crime. In the later sentencing hearings, the judge and counsel often referred to the earlier sentences and hearings for the other defendants. The fact that the judge did not discuss the crack/powder disparity argument at the same length in every sentencing does not mean that he did not adequately consider the issue. We disagree with the appellants’ suggestion that the sentencing judge did not understand or appreciate the advisory nature of the guidelines or the crack/powder disparity issues. The district judge is a veteran judge who made it clear in the sentencing proceedings that he understood the issues at stake and that he simply disagreed with the defendants’ arguments for lower sentences. The appellants claim, for example, that in the sentencing hearings of Bruce and George Rainey, the judge’s questions to Bruce Rainey’s counsel, as well as the fact that the judge did not explicitly acknowledge the sentencing disparity argument, “evince a failure to appreciate the advisory nature of the guidelines.” But the judge acknowledged that he knew the history of the sentencing disparity issue, which clearly includes a judge’s discretion to consider the disparity at sentencing. The judge asked the defense counsel how long Congress had been discussing the sentencing disparity issue and then answered his own question: “Ten years.” B. Rainey Sent. Tr. 14. Defense counsel later stated, “right now what I do see is – is an incredible amount of disparity in sentencing for these same exact drugs and all the arguments that Congress relied on in the late 80s and early 90s to make that disparity have been proven completely wrong, Your Honor, and the Sentencing Commission, when it made its 100‐to‐1 – you know this history better than I do.” The sentencing judge then replied: “Sure. Probably not better, but I know it.” Id. Any suggestion that the judge was unaware of the crack/powder disparity or his discretion under Kimbrough is simply groundless. The appellants argue further that in the case of Bruce Sonnenberg, the court was unreasonable and unrealistic in its discussion of the crack/powder disparity during the sentencing hearing, particularly with respect to how Congress would resolve the sentencing disparity. The appellants cite this exchange to show the judge’s supposed unreasonableness: THE COURT: Let me ask a question. I understand the disparity argument between powder and crack, but Congress makes the laws, right? MR. JONES: Yes. Nos. 09‐2834, 09‐2854, 09‐2912, 09‐3565, and 09‐3589 Page 5 THE COURT: Who’s to say that you’re right and Congress is wrong? I know many experts have testified that crack and powder, the effect on the human system is similar, but who’s to say that Congress won’t increase the powder to crack? I’ve been around this business for about forty some odd years and I’ve never seen a Congressman, because he doesn’t want to be called soft on crime, reduce penalties. Have you? B. Sonnenberg Sent. Tr. 26. The appellants argue that the sentencing judge erred because of the “uncontestable direction that crack cocaine sentencing guidelines are headed.” However, the judge’s willingness to discuss this issue during sentencing shows his awareness of and interest in the issue, and that he was fully engaged in the matter before him. All are now aware of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, of course, in which Congress reduced but did not eliminate the crack/powder disparity. See Pub. L. No. 111‐220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010). But no one expects sentencing judges to make decisions based on laws that Congress might enact in the near future. Furthermore, this court has held that the Fair Sentencing Act is not retroactive. United States v. Bell, —F.3d—, —, 2010 WL 4103700, at  (7th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010). The appellants argue that it was inappropriate for the Court to rely in another instance on anecdotal experience about crack addicts. The appellants cite this exchange, also from the end of the Bruce Sonnenberg hearing: MR. JONES: You sentenced Mr. Sonnenberg to 292 months imprisonment. THE COURT: I did. MR. JONES: Which is at the bottom of his guideline range. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONES: I also heard you mentioning you find no reason for a variance below it. If I may ask for clarification, does that include then you see no basis as it relates to a crack/powder disparity to go below his guidelines in this case? THE COURT: I just don’t see it. MR. JONES: Okay. I just need to – since it wasn’t addressed specifically, I thought I’d ask. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Actually you know I’ve had crack addicts and powder addicts tell me that well, now I can get off powder, but I could never get off crack. You can send me away for however many months you want, but when I get out, I’ll sell my mother for another hit. Isn’t that awful? MR. JONES: It is. THE COURT: Yeah. Anything else? MR. JONES: Nothing else, Your Honor. B. Sonnenberg Sent. Tr. 47. In the context of the judge’s other comments about the crack/powder disparity showing that he was fully aware of his discretion with respect to the crack/powder issue, we do not find this exchange troubling. The judge understood that he had Nos. 09‐2834, 09‐2854, 09‐2912, 09‐3565, and 09‐3589 Page 6 discretion under Kimbrough. He considered the crack/powder disparity argument, and he rejected it. He was under no obligation to treat the disparity as a mitigating factor. We find no error in the court’s treatment of this issue.