Document: 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008) Richard IRIZARRY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 06-7517. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 15, 2008. Decided June 12, *2199 Arthur J. Madden, III, Mobile, AL, for petitioner. Matthew D. Roberts, Washington, D.C., respondent. Peter B. Rutledge, Charlottesville, VA, as amicus curiae, appointed by this Court, in support the judgment below. Jonathan Hacker, Harvard Law School, and Appellate Advocacy Clinic, Cambridge, MA, Madden Counsel Record, & Soto, Walter Dellinger, Mark Davies, Ryan W. Scott, Admitted only Illinois, Susan M. Moss, O'Melveny Myers LLP, DC, Paul Clement, Solicitor General, Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney Michael R. Dreeben, *2200 Deputy to Sangita K. Rao, Attorney, Department Justice, Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. Rule 32(h) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, promulgated response our decision Burns States, 501 U.S. 129, 111 2182, 115 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1991), states that "[b]efore court may depart from applicable sentencing range on a ground not identified departure either presentence report or party's prehearing submission, must give parties reasonable notice it is contemplating such departure." The question presented case whether applies every sentence variance recommended Sentencing Guidelines even though considered "departure" term was used when promulgated. I Irizarry, pleaded guilty one count making threatening interstate communication, violation 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Petitioner made following admissions factual resume accompanying his plea: (1) On November 5, 2003, he sent an e-mail kill ex-wife her new husband; (2) had "dozens" similar e-mails restraining order; (3) intended "convey true threats injure multiple persons"; (4) at all times acted knowingly willfully. App. 273-275. (PSR), addition describing e-mails, reported petitioner asked another inmate ex-wife's husband. Brief States 6. PSR advised against adjustment acceptance responsibility 41-to-51 months imprisonment, based enhancements violating protective orders, threats, intending carry out those threats. 9. As possible grounds departure, probation officer stated petitioner's criminal history category might adequately reflect "`past conduct likelihood [petitioner] will commit other crimes.'" Ibid. Government no objection PSR, but call witness hearing. 293. objected PSR's application enhancement intention its rejection responsibility. Id., 295-296. Four witnesses testified 299. Petitioner's described incidents domestic violence, basis order petitioner, family friends. 307, 309, 314. She emphasized some length genuine concern fully 320. A special agent Bureau Investigation called describe documents recovered vehicle arrested; indicated track down their children. 326-328. cellmate next "was obsessed with idea getting rid of" *2201 336. Finally, length, stating accepted did really intend 361. also denied speaking about killing 356-357. After hearing counsel, trial judge thoughtful oral decision, which included findings resolving certain disputed issues fact. found deliberately terrorized ex-wife, more "that still intends terrorize Ms. Smith whatever means can does accept what has done." 372. giving both counsel opportunity make further comment, concluded: "I've evidence today, I've everything that's report, statutory purpose guideline range. find appropriate case. Mr. Irizarry's most disturbing. am sincerely convinced continue, testified, regardless kind supervision he's under. And upon that, maximum time be incapacitated best society, therefore range, think, high enough. "The goes up 51 months, nine shorter than maximum. But think what's appropriate, I'm going him." 374-375. imposed 60 imprisonment followed 3-year supervised release. 375. Defense then raised presents issue before us today. He stated, "We didn't have [the court's] intent upwardly depart. What law now with," responded, "I window .... You guidelines were advisory could anywhere within range." 377. Appeals Eleventh Circuit affirmed sentence, reasoning apply because "the above-guidelines district variance, 458 F.3d 1208, 1211 (2006) (per curiam). declined extend rule variances. "After [United Booker, 543 220, 125 738, 160 621 (2005),] are inherently advisory.... Given cannot claim unfair surprise inability present informed comment." 1212. Because Courts divided respect applicability variances,[1] we granted *2202 certiorari. 552 ___, 828, 169 625 (2008). We affirm. II At Burns, mandatory; Reform Act 1984, 211 et seq., 98 Stat. 1987, prohibited courts disregarding mechanical dictates Guidelines" except narrowly defined circumstances. U.S., 133, 2182. Confronted constitutional problems otherwise arise, held provision 32 allowed comment sentencenow 32(i)(1)(C)would "render[ed] meaningless" unless defendant given any contemplated departure. 135-136, SOUTER disagreed conclusion text conducted due process analysis. 147, 2182 (dissenting opinion). Any expectation subject protection decided would receive presumptively survive (2005), invalidated mandatory features Guidelines. Now faced Guidelines, neither nor place same degree reliance type "expectancy" gave rise need Burns. Indeed, outside carries presumption unreasonableness. Gall 586, 596-97 (2007); see Rita 551 127 2456, 168 203 (2007). It is, therefore, longer "were read dispense [of non-Guidelines sentence], confront serious [such] setting mandated Due Process Clause." 138, concerns motivated require world provide set forth through interpretation itself 32(i)(1)(C). contrary dissent argues, post, 2204-2205 (opinion BREYER, J.), 3553 variances terms. "Departure" art under refers sentences framework requirement applied narrow cases. relevant departures authorized 3553(b) (1988 ed.), required "an aggravating mitigating circumstance kind, degree, taken into consideration Commission formulating should result different described." That determination guidelines, policy statements, official commentary Commission." subcategory "a ... pre-hearing submission." 138-139, 2182; Fed. Crim. Proc. 32(h). Although "starting point initial benchmark," continue play role determination, Gall, *2203 596-97, there limit comparable ranges District justified factors 3553(a) (2000 ed. Supp. V). 32(i)(1)(C) requires allow "matters relating sentence," scope hearing, normally well-advised withhold final until after full arguments. fluid dynamic know end adopted, let alone grounds." Vega-Santiago, 519 1, 4 (C.A.1 2008) (en banc). Adding whenever create unnecessary delay; who concludes during forced where content affect parties' presentation argument evidence. In if assume began, record indicate statement announcing possibility changed presentations material way; do admits much arguing error here harmless. 37-38. Sound practice judges cases sure information provided advance itself, them adequate debate issues. recognize particular come Government. problem reach 32(h)'s categorically, rather consider granting continuance party legitimate claiming prejudicial. Judge Boudin noted, "In normal competent lawyer... anticipate occur hearingbased trial, pre-sentence exchanges concerning preparation mitigation Garden variety considerations culpability, history, re-offense, seriousness crime, nature so generally lawyers prepared sentencing." F.3d, 5. fact remains effect today justify extending protections variances; justification exists extension apt complicate simplify procedures. confidence ability counselespecially light 32's procedural protections[2]to *2204 matters been made. affirmed. ordered. THOMAS, concurring. Earlier Term, explained "there principled way Booker remedy," "best statute written, including 3553(b), makes [Federal Sentencing] mandatory." Kimbrough 558, 578, 481 (2007) opinion) (referencing 258-265, (2005)); 603 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (applying mandatory). Consistent view, hold committed "variance" manner permit "departures," circumstances present. See Commission, Manual 1B1.1 (Nov.2007). post-Booker "variances" permissible currently us. Rather, Procedure imposes submission agree compels imposing ante, 2203. Each addresses "departures" contemplate drastic changes federal wrought remedy. For reason, join Court's opinion. whom KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG join, dissenting. says: "Before decides, pursuant V), impose says apply. disagree. creates legal distinction without difference. speaks specifically "departure[s]," reason why encompass calls "variances." define mean "imposition *2205 sentence." (USSG), 1B1.1, comment., n. 1(E) So-called fall comfortably definition. Variances consistent ordinary meaning "departure." See, e.g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 604 (1993) (defining "deviation divergence esp. rule" (def. 5a)). conceptually speaking, substantive difference between nonexistent, opinions themselves clear. ___ - 594-95 (using non-Guideline sentence); 2464 (stating "may (either or, since sentence)"). Of course, drafters Guidelines-authorized mind: written took (2005). Yet language rule, purpose, often authors foresee. Oncale Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 75, 79-80, 118 998, 140 201 (1998). here, behind construed added "reflect" (1991). Advisory Committee's Notes 32, U.S.C.App., p. 1141 ed., II). (2002 Amendments). focused extraordinary court, own initiative expectations Government, decides predicates satisfied." 135, "before upward [must] ruling." Our holding motivated, part, desire avoid concerns. ("[W]ere notice, Clause"). perhaps majority suggests "[a]ny Burns" failed Booker. Ante, ____. primary one. principally "`an sentence.'" (citing then-Rule 32(a)(1)). "Obviously," said, sua sponte warranted "matter (internal quotation marks omitted). To deprive thus "rende[r] right 136, Notice, added, *2206 "essential assuring fairness." relied overall "provid[ing] focused, adversarial development issues" related sentencing. 134, This gleaned, inter alia, file responses objections speak proceeding. Construing departures, reasoned, "inconsistent promoting resolution" 137, equal force here. Today, provides virtually identical "allow attorneys officer's determinations (Emphasis added.) previously unidentified [an] subvert "promoting word, fair. Seeking overcome text, precedent side, two practical arguments defense. First, number reasons Is so? Courts, while free vary Guideline-specified always USSG ch. pt. A, 4(b) (Nov.1987), reprinted 1A1.1 editorial note (Nov.2007) (suggesting broad authority). recognized essentially potential warrant 136-137, (1990)). Regardless, expanded seem additional favor of, against, court's reason. all, promote "focused, adversarial" litigation supra, Second, fears unnecessarily "delay" "complicate" 2203, 2204. seems exaggerated. seeks presentencing submissions. consulting prosecutors, tells "in vast [presentence report] parties." 32. remaining cases, necessarily delay. *2207 well address meaningful likely adduce brief unconsidered issue. Further, extent sentencing, use 32(d)(2)(F), enables reports (including, presumably, exist sentence). If includes section 3553(a), eliminate wind identified. produced burdens delay, fairness justifies regardless. herethe directly affected sentencingboth urge requirement. Clearly they recognize, fairness" believe safeguard. vacate remand determine received and, not, act accordingly. respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Compare 1 banc); Vampire Nation, 451 189 (C.A.3 2006); Mejia-Huerta, 480 713 (C.A.5 2007); Long Soldier, 431 1120 (C.A.8 2005); Walker, 447 999, 1006 (C.A.7 2006), Anati, 457 233 (C.A.2 Davenport, 445 366 (C.A.4 Cousins, 469 572 (C.A.6 Evans-Martinez, 448 1163 (C.A.9 Atencio, 476 1099 (C.A.10 2007). [2] copy least 35 days 32(e)(2). each 14 object 32(f)(1), 7 submit version parties, unresolved objections, 32(g). 32(i)(1)(C), testimony, 32(i)(4)(A)(ii).

Category: 0