Document: Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STEVEN SPEARS v. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 08–5721. Decided January 21, 2009 PER CURIAM. Steven Spears was found guilty of conspiracy to distrib ute at least 50 grams cocaine base and 500 powder cocaine, in violation 21 U.S. C. §§841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 846. At sentencing, the District Court determined that drug quantities attrib utable yielded an offense level 38, his criminal history justified placing him Guidelines’ category IV, resulting advi sory Guidelines sentencing range 324 405 months’ imprisonment. The view 100:1 ratio between crack quantities, see United States Sentencing Commission, Manual §2D1.1(c) (Nov. 2006) (USSG),* excessive sentence light factors outlined 18 §3553(a). Rely ing part on decisions from other Courts, Perry, 389 F. Supp. 2d 278, 307–308 (RI 2005); Smith, 359 771, 781– 782 (ED Wis. 2005), which turn relied a report Commission criticizing ratio, Report Con gress: Cocaine Federal Policy 106–107, App. A, pp. 3–6 (May 2002) (hereinafter gress), recalculated Spears’ based 20:1 crack-to-powder ratio. That —————— * has since reduced See USSG, C, Amdt. 706 2007). 2 34 210 262 sentenced 240 months prison, statutory mandatory minimum. Spears, 469 F.3d 1166, 1173–1174 (CA8 (en banc) (Spears I). On cross-appeal, Government argued “the district court erred by categorically rejecting quantity substituting its own calculating Spears’s sentence.” Id., 1174. Eighth Circuit reversed remanded for resentencing, holding “neither Booker nor §3553(a) authorizes courts reject use different defendants offenses.” 1176. This vacated judgment Circuit, further considera tion Kimbrough States, 552 ___ (2007). (2008). remand, again resentencing. 533 715, 716 (2008) II). It concluded, again, “may not set forth Guidelines,” id., 717, “ ‘impermissi bly varied replacing inherent advisory with ratio,’ ” ibid. (quoting I, supra, 1178). petitioned writ certiorari. Because Circuit’s decision remand conflicts our Kimbrough, we grant petition certiorari reverse. In held “under Booker, Guidelines, like all are only,” S., (slip op., 2), “it would be abuse discretion conclude when particular defendant crack/powder disparity yields ‘greater than necessary’ achieve §3553(a)’s purpose, even mine-run case,” 3 21) (emphasis added). correct interpretation is one offered dissent II: “The thus established particu lar case presents no spe cial mitigating circumstances—no outstanding service country or community, unusually disadvantaged childhood, overstated score, post-offense rehabilitation—a may nonetheless vary downward guide line range. do so solely 100-to-1 embodied sentenc guidelines treatment ver sus creates ‘an unwarranted within meaning §3553(a),’ ‘at odds §3553(a).’ only fact necessary justify such variance court’s disagreement guidelines—its policy disparity.” F.3d, 719 (opinion Colloton, J.) (citations omitted). considered rejected position taken below. noted “a attract greatest respect judge finds ‘outside “heartland” intends individual apply.’ 20–21) Rita 551 338, 351 (2007)). implication “inside heartland” departure (which neces sarily necessarily disagrees “categorical basis”) entitled less respect. Our opinion said, however, “crack . present occasion elaborative discussion this matter because those Guide lines exemplify Commission’s exercise 4 characteristic institutional role.” 21). holds categorical suspect. indeed point Kimbrough: recognition courts’ authority them, simply individualized determination they yield case. latter proposition already pre-Kimbrough, 543 220, 245–246 (2005), conceded as much Kimbrough. ___, n. 13 13, 13). did prevail proves concession—“that if it does ‘based circum stance[s]’ ibid.—understated extent discretion. drawing distinction “individualized, specific” consideration cate gorical rejection replacement part, II, following passage [district] purport establish ra tio own. Rather, appropriately framed final overarching struction ‘impose sufficient, but greater accomplish goals advanced §3553(a)(2).” 22). says “appropriate” specify what using, merely proceed analysis. read mean courts, course their determinations, 5 disagree (con sequently) substitute Guidelines. If meant that, vacating I have been inexplica ble, supposedly impermissible substitution precisely reason I’s reversal Court. 1175–1176. As logical matter, course, explicitly approved implies adoption some govern mine run A who given power created must also possess apply which, judgment, corrects disparity. Put simply, ability reduce defendant’s permits To above quoted language obscured Kimbrough’s holding, now clarify Here, Court’s choice upon two well-reasoned themselves reflected expert appropriate 2d, 307–308; 781–782; Congress 3–6. alternative approach—adopted Cir cuit—would likely results. Either treat mandatory, believing “categorical” dis agreements continue vary, masking disagreements “individualized determinations.” institution alized subterfuge. former contradicts 6 Neither acceptable practice. opposing certio rari, contends stands noncontroversial resentencing warranted properly consider factors. Brief Opposition 12– 13. But argument below, plainly rest ground. concluded instead Guidelines.” 717. says, Judon, 284 Fed. Appx. 371, 372 (per curiam), we. any event, cut short analysis, had minimum required, mooting arguments sentence. deci sion entertain pointless hardly consti tutes procedural error. contends, post, 1, recognized core stated conducting “an assessment circumstances case, trict determine results harsher necessary,” holding; Government’s pre vail. And expressly contradicted crack-cocaine where there “particular circumstances” otherwise believes “[t]his involves arguably distinct issue whether 7 underlying adopt crack-powder ratios place Post, 1. addressed say considers cannot Kimbrough-sanctioned district-court honestly effect. absurd think reasonable factors, §3553(a), becomes unreasonable chooses disagreement, degree entire basis departure. “Apprendi, Rita, Gall, lower good deal digest over relatively period.” 3. True enough—and should therefore promptly remove menu offering, smuggled-in dish indigestible. Finally, points out followed Russell, 537 6, 11 (CA1 2008); Gunter, 527 282, 286 (CA3 2008). Both seized order stand adopted pre-Kimbrough— First despite having remanded, prior course. Pho error opinions is, think, evident, demonstrate need once motion leave 8 forma pauperis granted. Appeals reversed, proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. JUSTICE KENNEDY oral argument. THOMAS dissents. ROBERTS, J., dissenting CHIEF whom ALITO joins, dissenting. summary explained majority here judges cogent contrary last Term apparent warrant bitter medicine reversal, reasons address question presented time. author ity depart concerns: “In considering overall under [18 C.] sessment sary.” 717 volves There seems support Appeals’ holding. approval “did own.” 22) held, “appropriately instruction impose ad vanced Ibid. (internal quotation marks Two Courts agree language. 2008) (emphasizing importance individualized, case-by-case rather reliance generalized ratios”); (“a employ ‘rubber stamp’ approach rejects parity without factors”). cites circuit stuff reversal. well today follows clear me result parcel especially above. same time, believe meets normal criteria plenary consideration. noted, split replace choosing. And, above, “so far departed accepted usual judicial call supervisory power.” Ct. Rule 10(a). words, exactly sort could benefit attention ap peals. We rush answer novel about application one-year-old absence pronounced conflict among circuits. Apprendi, period. give them time nuances these precedents before adding new ones. plant grow you constantly yank ground roots healthy.

Category: 0