Document: 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007) Brian Michael GALL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 06-7949. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 2, 2007. Decided December 10, *591 Jeffrey T. Green, Washington, DC, appointed by this Court, for petitioner. R. Dreeben, respondent. Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Counsel Record, Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney Deputy Matthew Roberts, to the Nina Goodman, P. Singdahlsen, Department Justice, D.C., Marc Milavitz, The Alternative Law Office Boulder, CO, L. Stanford School, Stanford, CA, Sarah O'Rourke, Schrup, Chicago, IL, Quin M. Sorenson, Pankaj Venugopal, E. Nelson, Sidley Austin LLP, Dwyer, David Hemingway, Federal Public Defender Office, St. Louis, MO, Petitioner. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. In two cases argued on same day last Term we considered standard that courts appeals should apply when reviewing reasonableness sentences imposed district judges. first, Rita States, 551 U.S. ___, 127 2456, 168 Ed. 2d 203 (2007), involved a sentence within range recommended Sentencing Guidelines; held judge's discretionary decision in particular case accords with States Commission deems appropriate "in mine run cases," court may presume is reasonable. Id., at S.Ct., 2465. second case, Claiborne below Guidelines, and raised converse question whether "proportionality test," require constitutes substantial variance from Guidelines be justified extraordinary circumstances. See 549 551, 166 406 (2006). We did not have opportunity answer because was mooted Claiborne's untimely death. 2245, 167 1080 (per curiam). granted certiorari before us today order reach question, left unanswered Term. 2933, 261 (2007). now hold that, while extent difference between surely relevant, must review all  inside, just outside, or significantly outside under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. also experienced District Judge I February March 2000, petitioner Gall, second-year college student University Iowa, invited Luke Rinderknecht join an ongoing enterprise *592 distributing controlled substance popularly known as "ecstasy."[1] Gall who then user ecstasy, cocaine, marijuana accepted invitation. During ensuing seven months, ecstasy pills, which he received Rinderknecht, other conspirators, sold them consumers. He netted over $30,000. A month after joining conspiracy, stopped using ecstasy. few months September advised co-conspirators withdrawing conspiracy. has illegal drugs any kind since. has, words "self-rehabilitated." App. 75. graduated Iowa 2002, moved first Arizona, where obtained job construction industry, later Colorado, earned $18 per hour master carpenter. used since graduating college. After approached federal law enforcement agents questioned him about his involvement distribution admitted limited participation took no further action time. On April 28, 2004 approximately year half initial interview, three years withdrew conspiracy indictment returned Southern charging defendants participating distribute marijuana, began May 1996 continued through 30, 2002. Government never truthfulness Gall's earlier statements contended played role in, had knowledge of, aspects described indictment. When notice indictment, back surrendered authorities. While free own recognizance, started business primarily engaged subcontracting installation windows doors. year, profits were $2,000 month. entered into plea agreement Government, stipulating "responsible for, but necessarily himself, least 2,500 grams [ecstasy], equivalent 87.5 kilograms marijuana." 25. agreement, acknowledged "on 2000," communicated intent stop members Ibid. provided recent changes enhanced punishment applicable withdrawn prior effective date those changes. her presentence report, probation officer concluded significant criminal history; organizer, leader, manager; offense involve use weapons. report stated truthfully evidence concerning alleged offenses, useful new information agents. *593 absence such years. sentencing 30 37 imprisonment. record hearing 27, 2005, includes "small flood" letters parents relatives, fiance, neighbors, representatives firms doing him, uniformly praising character work ethic. transcript testimony several witnesses Judge's colloquy (AUSA) Gall. AUSA contest law-abiding life during preceding five years, urged "the are followed," requested impose prison range. 93. mentioned coconspirators been sentenced 35 respectively, upon questioning neither voluntarily term 36 months. addition making lengthy statement record, judge filed detailed memorandum explaining decision, following reasons written judgment: "The determined considering factors 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), Defendant's explicit withdrawal almost four filing Indictment, post-offense conduct, especially obtaining degree start successful business, support family friends, lack history, age time warrant imposed, sufficient, greater than necessary serve purposes sentencing." 117. At end both memorandum, reminded probation, rather "an act leniency," "substantial restriction freedom." 99, 125. emphasized: "[Gall] will comply strict reporting conditions along three-year regime alcohol drug testing. able change make decisions circumstances life, live work, prized liberty interests, without seeking authorization Probation Officer or, perhaps, even Of course, Defendant always faces harsh consequences await if violates probationary term." Finally, explained why reflected seriousness imprisonment necessary: "Any would counter depriving society contributions who, found, understands conduct everything power forge life. indicates return behavior nor danger society. fact, motivated desire please governmental agency, pre-Indictment product lead better life." 125-126. *594 II Appeals reversed remanded resentencing. Relying its Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479 (C.A.8 2006), it supported justification "`"is proportional advisory imposed."'" 446 884, 889 2006) (quoting F.3d, 481, turn quoting Johnson, 427 423, 426-427 (C.A.7 2005)). Characterizing bottom "extraordinary" amounted "a 100% downward variance," 889, here Rather attempt quantify value justifications Judge, identified what regarded separate errors reasoning: (1) gave "too much weight conspiracy"; (2) given 21 offense, erroneously "significant weight" studies showing impetuous persons 18; (3) "properly weigh" offense; (4) failed consider result "unwarranted" disparities; (5) placed emphasis rehabilitation." 889-890. As shall explain, persuaded these factors, viewed separately aggregate, sufficient conclusion abused discretion. preface our discussion particulars, however, explain Appeals' rule requiring "proportional" departures consistent remedial Booker, 543 220, 125 738, 160 621 (2005). III Booker invalidated statutory provision, § 3553(b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), made mandatory, 3742(e) ed. directed appellate de novo Guidelines. advisory, determining they "reasonable." Our explanation "reasonableness" pellucidly clear familiar applies decisions. U.S., 260-262, 738; see Rita, 2456 (STEVENS, J., concurring). It give serious consideration departure unusually lenient justifications. For though are, pointed out careful study based extensive empirical derived thousands individual decisions.[2]Id., 2456. range, *595 therefore take account deviation reject, requires justify reject rigid mathematical formula uses percentage strength required specific sentence. matter, approaches come too close creating impermissible presumption unreasonableness id., 2467 ("The fact permit adopt does mean unreasonableness").[3] Even Booker. Brief O.T.2006, 06-5754, pp. 34-35. approach suffers infirmities application. one side equation, deviations appear more extreme terms itself low, regardless 1 100 Moreover, quantifying certain maximum, minimum, median gives freedom" supervised release probation. 95. recognize custodial qualitatively severe terms. Offenders nonetheless subject substantially restrict their liberty. Knights, 534 112, 119, 122 587, 151 497 (2001) ("Inherent very nature probationers `do enjoy absolute every citizen entitled'" Griffin Wisconsin, 483 868, 874, 107 3164, 97 709 (1987))).[4] Probationers leave *596 judicial district, move, jobs notifying, some receiving permission from, court. They regularly officer, unannounced visits homes, refrain associating person convicted felony, excessive drinking. USSG 5B1.3. Most "special conditions" instance, patronize establishment derives 50% revenue sale alcohol, submit random tests officer. 109. assumes existence ascertainable method assigning percentages various Does less than, say, 30% reduction? matter occurred ago? Is relevant discontinue life? What percentage, any, assigned defendant poses future threat society, innocent third parties dependent him? classic example attempting measure inventory apples counting oranges.[5] importantly, exceptional requirement formulation reflect practice common among adopted "proportional review" applying heightened This inconsistent inside begin proceedings correctly calculating administration secure nationwide consistency, starting point benchmark. only consideration, however. Accordingly, giving argue whatever deem appropriate, 3553(a) determine party.[6] so doing, *597 individualized assessment facts presented. If decides outside-Guidelines warranted, ensure sufficiently compelling variance. find uncontroversial major minor one. settling sentence, adequately chosen allow meaningful promote perception fair sentencing. Regardless committed procedural error, failing calculate (or improperly calculating) treating selecting clearly erroneous facts, including Assuming court's procedurally sound, substantive conducting review, will, totality circumstances, may, to, reasonableness. But unreasonableness. deviation, due deference whole, might reasonably different insufficient reversal Practical considerations underlie legal principle. superior position import case. sees hears evidence, makes credibility determinations, full gains insights conveyed record." Community Defenders et al. Amici Curiae 16. access familiarity with, *598 court." 2469. "[d]istrict institutional advantage sorts many do." Koon 518 81, 98, 116 2035, 135 392 (1996).[7] "It uniform constant tradition unique human failings sometimes mitigate, magnify, crime ensue." 113, 2035.[8] uniqueness requisite IV note error. calculated allowed present arguments believed be, thoroughly documented reasoning. found erred proper 3553(a)(2)(A), create unwarranted disparities, 3553(a)(6). disagree. Section 3553(a)(2)(A) judges need imposed... respect law, provide offense." properly weigh offense" "ignored health risks poses." 890. Contrary conclusion, plainly offense. See, e.g., 99 bound reflects *599 MDMA ecstasy"); 122.[9] true reference (unquestionably significant) posed prosecutor raise ecstasy's effects hearing. Had issue, order, incumbent conceivably issue initiative. Government's legitimate concern threatens disrespect offset eight situation respect, derision, merely means dispense taking real 126. 3553(a)(6) avoid disparities similar records guilty conduct." show disparities." avoidance setting ranges. Since carefully reviewed disparities. understand AUSA, seems attention disparity inquired already codefendants. Harbison 30-month Gooding occurred: "THE COURT: ... You probably know anybody. How long stay withdraw? "MR GRIESS: not. not? "MR. withdraw. And think, shorter period time, end. Okay. Thank you. there, Your Honor, guidelines changed and, therefore, higher level that." 88. *600 little Mr. Griess stated: thing want talk goes disparity. Obviously, cognizant wants 89. discussed length another codefendant, Jarod Yoder, whose roughly comparable Gall's. differences Yoder Gall: withdraw From perfectly similarities similarly situated. voluntary reasonable basis codefendants rehabilitated themselves done. called i.e., discretion contrary incorrect demonstrate decision. V virtually Court's Although abuse discretion, analysis closely resembled presented view, warranted. thought "gave acknowledge benefit being 1999 Guidelines."[10] 889. criticism flawed ignores critical relevance withdrawal, circumstance distinguished codefendants, vast majority quite attached great deciding, initiative, lends strong going §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). Compared offender's rehabilitation charged crime, *601 believing turnaround genuine, distinct transparent build mitigation improper factor" compared 21-year-old adult "impetuous ill-considered" actions 18. observed cited do how "specific instant ill-considered." portion discussing "character defendant," 122. noted history included ticket underage drinking old possession contemporaneous summary, "including twenty-one-years younger" appeared "to stem addictions alcohol." 123. appended footnote immaturity. excerpt Roper Simmons, 569, 1183, 161 (2005), quotes stating maturity undeveloped sense responsibility qualities "'often ill-considered actions.'" opening closing footnote: "Immaturity inconsequential consideration. Recent development brain conclude become complete until twenty-five.. . [T]he [National Institute Health] confirms there bold line demarcating reaches maturity. excuse behavior, inquiring defendant." 123, n. 2. Given dramatic contrast joined withdrawing, unreasonable view immaturity mitigating factor, sign matured engage future. Indeed, factor finds cases. Johnson Texas, 509 350, 367, 113 2658, 290 (1993) (holding jury 19-year-old defendant's youth probability continue commit violent acts "`youth chronological fact. condition most susceptible influence psychological damage'" Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 115, 102 869, 71 (1982))). permanent, middleman 10,000 pills "lies choice dictated case." still assuming Guidelines-based departure, aside state alone *602 offenses.[11] thus "range case" broadened. imposing 3553(a)(3) directs below, here, could identical permissible contained evidence. Tr. Oral Arg. 37-38 (stating exact "there individuals badly hurt available care them"). self-motivated rehabilitation, undertaken direction supervision by, court, deter engaging protect public acts. disagreed probation; sustain marked decide reasoned judgment reversed. ordered. SCALIA, concurring. wrote my scheme constitutionally indistinguishable mandatory struck down Whether test" variances, standard, upheld additional judge-found facts. believe substantive-reasonableness inherently flawed, stare decisis effect holding Rita. highly far fewer unconstitutional proportionality employed Eighth Circuit. foreclosed as-applied constitutional challenges sentences. door *603 remains open jury. SOUTER, today's companion Kimbrough ___ 558, L.Ed.2d 2007 WL 4292040, follow My disagreements holdings stuff formally perpetual dissent, objectionable points hexing judgments today, (SOUTER, dissenting), supra, 272, 738 dissenting part). Booker's holding, think best resolution tension consistency throughout system right trial Act Congress: reestablishing (though original detail), providing findings set upper 2463-2464. THOMAS, dissenting. Consistent affirm error departed ALITO, fundamental whether, policy embodied affirmative Appeals. bare Reform 1984 (Sentencing Act), amended, 3551 seq., 28 991 violated Sixth Amendment insofar defect remedied excising provisions, compliance mandatory. holdings, lower instructed "effectively advisory," 245, "`reasonableness.'" 262, 738. exactly meant "advisory" interpretations. possible read judges, polite nod, proceed essentially enacted. dissents interpreted *604 opinion. "regain[ed] unconstrained Congress eliminated 1984" enacted Act. 297, SCALIA "logic compels judge. possessed passed, anywhere range." 305, understanding opinion, reading Guidelines' police compliance. key passage, courts, consult U.S.C.A. 3553(a)(4), (Supp.2004). compare post, 305 (SCALIA, part) (claiming 'he passed'). These features remaining system, enacted, move Congress' preferred direction, helping maintaining flexibility individualize necessary." 264-265, (emphasis added). implication passage monitor "consult" "take account." 264, addition, distances SCALIA's scheme, "discretion ranges authorized statute" "state[d] `this forth sort offense.'" (opinion quoted above expressed confidence help "`excessive disparities'" "would tend iron differences." 263, theme well post-Booker Act's goal reducing 2463, 2463-2464, 2467; 259-260, 263-264, unrealistic can achieved lip service broad restraints Thus, obligated deciding is, independent judgment, "move direction." Court). contrary, gradually increase. *605 Appellate affirming diverge (such today) influential, habits developed pre-Booker era fade. forget decision's underpinnings. antecedents (at system) jury, judge, increase 230-232, Blakely 542 296, 303-304, 124 2531, 159 403 (2004). telling rules nothing juries factfinding indeed, bears petitioner's disputed. instead, allocation authority issues policy, says absolutely nothing. yawning gap enough Blakely-Booker gone astray. Blakely, drew distinction 309-310, 2531 cannot defended coherent principle increases beyond minimum jury's verdict guilt Such clash adoption Amendment. By statutes select prescribed range,[1] First cast mold. An *606 Punishment Crimes against Stat. 112.[2] Under type, inevitably (albeit informally) verdict. example, statute burglary up x otherwise amount introduced armed committing told confederate kill occupants awakened burglary. type occurs each finding quantified. instances, cause spend juries, drawn acceptance produced strange collateral consequences. specified permits implement policies. latter feature, wise unwise, concerns Amendment, principal objective hands remedy, undid congressional choice. curing perceived regarding factfinding, restored policymaking taken away. (How here.) cases, path off course. Because interpretation minimize held. Read fairly, holds exercise Petitioner "ecstasy." distributed $30,000 $40,000 profit. eventually *607 worried apprehension. Compelled interpret appears, chose outlined STEVENS' dissents. deferred degree. Rather, accordingly. jurist 3553(a)(2), disturbed. Commission's statements, 3553(a)(3), (4), V), agree Circuit empty formality. calling "hardly unfettered standards shielded thorough review." Albemarle Paper Co. Moody, 422 405, 416, 95 2362, 45 280 (1975). Accord, Taylor, 487 326, 336, 108 2413, 101 297 (1988); Franks Bowman Transp. Co., 424 747, 783, 96 1251, 47 444 (1976) (Powell, concurring part slighted deemed pertinent." 337, 2413. Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 438-440, 103 1933, 76 40 (1983) (finding "did consider" 12 attorney's fees passing Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards 1976, 42 1988). Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 483, 497-498, 121 1711, 149 722 (A exercising "cannot `ignore Congress, deliberately legislation.' Virginian Railway Employees, 300 515, 57 592, 81 789 (1937)"); American Institute, Inc. Elec. Power Service Corp., 402, 413, 1921, 22 ("To [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's] was. agency relevant" (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.S. NLRB, 316 31, 46, 47, 62 886, 86 1246 (1942) National Labor Relations Board sought fulfill "wholly ignore[d] equally important Congressional objectives"). Here, "slighted" V) namely, *608 day. restrictions burdens ante, 595-596, world huge appreciable countervailing considerations. listed probation: "voluntary conspiracy," "exemplary bond," manifested friends," history," 21. 97. Two friends" age, ibid. direct rejection basic policy. Act, "age," "education," "previous employment record," "physical condition," "family ties responsibilities," "community ties" "have [and] sentence." 994(d). frequency, pre-Sentencing relevance. increasing others decreasing job, supportive family, justifying harsher ground squandered Alternatively, network likely crime. personal views matters, inevitable. response establish national policies issued concluding ties," unusual Commission, Manual 5H1.1 (age), 5H1.6 (family community ties) (Nov.2006). claim anything particularly rejected effort reduce relied thereof) central calculation credit Consequently, expression *609 disagreement determination 97, weighty factor. impressed conspiracy." argues, diminished motivation withdrawing. conscience, ring. afraid 886 2006). rights "self-rehabilitat[ion]," 75, positive considerations, enough, light call 30- 37-month term, B reaching opposite attacks straw men. unjustifiably faults characterizes "rigid formula." Ante, 596. (following Seventh opinion) imposed." 479, 481 2005); internal omitted). Taking language literally computation, easy precision possible: "[T]he him?" unfair. apparent Circuits suggest reduced certainly assign numbers offered All meant, am convinced, states, range" exercised 592. wrong suggesting Circuit's review. unequivocally 888-889; toothless; entirely "slighted." mere *610 hardly proof correct applied respectfully dissent.[3] NOTES [1] Ecstasy "MDMA" scientific name "methylenedioxy-methamphetamine." 24, 118. [2] Notably, tied instead established crimes. 1A1.1 (Nov.2006) (USSG). deviate addressed 4292040. [3] Several Courts Howard, 454 700, 703 ("Although does, unreasonableness"); Matheny, 450 633, 642 (C.A.6 ("[T]his guideline presumptively unreasonable"); Myers, 415, 417 ("We unreasonable, depart discretion" (citation omitted)). [4] Advisory Council Judges Crime Delinquency, Guides 13-14 (1957) ("Probation spirit leniency.... Wickersham said, `letting offender easily'"); N. Cohen, Parole 7:9 (2d 1999) ("[T]he parole impact Often comprehensively regulate facets day-to-day lives .... frequent searches government officials, counseling sessions caseworker psychotherapist"). [5] [6] lists consider. command characteristics 3553(a)(1). general sentencing, including: "(A) "(B) afford adequate deterrence conduct; "(C) crimes defendant; "(D) needed educational vocational training, medical care, correctional treatment manner." 3553(a)(2). pertains kinds available," 3553(a)(3); fourth fifth Commission; sixth disparities," 3553(a)(6); seventh restitution victim," 3553(a)(7). Preceding list directive "impose necessary, purposes" V). explicitly supports premise remain process. [7] average, 117 year. Administrative Courts, 2006 Management Statistics 167. Pratt, 990 offenders course career. Likens, 464 823, 827, (Bright, dissenting). Only relatively small fraction appeal grounds. Koon, 2035 ("In 1994, 93.9% appealed"); dissenting) (noting hundreds "[w]e miniscule number cases"); cf. Sourcebook 135-152. [8] revealing argument "de `to arising differing judges.'" O.T. 1995, 94-1664, p. 12). satisfied successfully balance "reduce unjustified disparities" across Nation "consider individual." 2035. [9] directly noted, however: "[T]his perspectives. hand, [Gall] punished profiting scheme. [Gall], working-class financial resources, decided what, profitable venture.... consider, aspect other." 123-124, 3. [10] current treat harshly, base 32, levels [11] Specifically, Zone table here. 5B1.1. To examples, Connecticut, 1784, robbery violence 10 "at Discretion Superior whom Conviction had." Acts Laws State Connecticut (1784). 1749 Delaware assault parent 306 (1797). 1793 Maryland ability adjudge" labour exceeding" Digest 196 (T. Herty 1799). 1785, Massachusetts criminals variety manslaughter, "according aggravation offense," Court." Perpetual Laws, Commonwealth Massachusetts, Establishment Constitution Session General A.D. 1788 (1788), reprinted 244-252 (J. Cushing comp.1981). 1791, New Hampshire passed punishing assaults forgery (1792). Jersey, York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina likewise indeterminate either before, immediate wake ratification Jersey 210-218 (1800) (detailing laws 1796); 2 York 45-48, 211, 242-248, 390 (1789); 288, 389 Iredell 1791); Abridgment Penal 1-47 (1801) 1790-1794); Island Providence Plantations 584-600 (1798); 55, 61, 257, Grimke 1790). often looked aide Bill Rights, proposed. Harmelin Michigan, 501 957, 980, 111 2680, 115 836 (1991) J.) (noting, interpreting "[t]he persuasive means"); Marsh Chambers, 463 788-790, 3330, 77 1019 (looking Amendment); Carroll 267 132, 150-152, 280, 69 (1925) Fourth Amendment). noteworthy proposition entitled weight. conspicuously refrains addressing equivocal, "while longer binding, closer varies solely `fails considerations' mine-run Post, 575 2465, (2007)).

Category: 0