Opinion ID: 151874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Statutory Considerations

Text: The SRA tasked the district courts with sentencing individual offenders in accordance with several statutory factors, but, at the same time, eliminated most of the district court's discretion in carrying out that task. In nearly all cases, the court's job was ministerial, to follow the Commission's instructions. The scheme played out this way. The district courts were required to sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Section 3553(a) directed the courts to tailor their sentences to the particular circumstances of the offense and the offender consistent with what I refer to as the parsimony [21] principle: a sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the four traditional purposes of sentencing. (emphasis added). [22] Section 3353(b)(1), however, instructed that the court shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the range prescribed by the Guidelines, unless there exist[ed] an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines or there was no applicable sentencing guideline. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1). In the absence of an applicable sentencing guideline, the court [had to] impose an appropriate sentence, having due regard for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)(2)the four traditional purposes of sentencing. Id. The court also had to consider sentences prescribed by guidelines applicable to similar offenses and offenders and the applicable policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. Id. Because the district court was obligated to follow the Guidelines in all but the rarest cases, the district court only followed the parsimony principle to the extent that the Commission did in creating the Guidelines. Congress instructed the Commission to establish sentencing guidelines to meet the § 3553(a)(2) purposes, but did not mention the parsimony principle that appears in § 3553(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 991(b)(1)(A). [23] It is thus not clear that the Guidelines took into account the parsimony principle, and the way they operated frequently created tension with the parsimony principle. In sum, while Congress instructed district judges to consider the § 3553(a)(2) purposes, district judgesto ensure uniformityalmost always had to impose Guidelines sentences. They only conducted an independent analysis of the 3553(a)(2) purposes and parsimony principle in the rare event that aggravating or mitigating circumstances existed or no guideline applied.