Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) Victor A. RITA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 06-5754. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 20, 2007. Decided June 21, *2459 Thomas N. Cochran, for Petitioner. Michael R. Dreeben, Respondent. Jeffrey T. Green, Robert Hochman, Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Quin Sorenson, Eric Shumsky, Brian E. Nelson, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Louis C. Allen III, William Ingram, First Elizabeth Flagg, Research & Writing Attorney, Greensboro, NC, Paul D. Clement, Alice Fisher, Attorney General, Deputy Solicitor Dan Himmelfarb, Matthew Roberts, Assistants to the Nina Goodman, P. Singdahlsen, Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. The federal courts appeals review sentences and set aside those they find "unreasonable." See, e.g., States Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-263, 125 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005). Several Circuits have held that, when doing so, will presume that a sentence imposed within properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable sentence. 177 Fed. Appx. 357, 358 (C.A.4 2006) (per curiam) (case below); see also Commission, Manual (Nov.2006) (USSG or Guidelines). most important question before us whether law permits use this presumption. We hold it does. I A basic crime in case concerns two false statements which Rita, petitioner, made under oath grand jury. jury was investigating gun company called InterOrdnance. Prosecutors believed buyers an InterOrdnance kit, "PPSH 41 machinegun `parts kit,'" could assemble from kits consequently amounted machineguns, had not secured proper registrations importation guns. App. 7, 16-19, 21-22. *2460 Rita bought PPSH parts kit. contacted by Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms Explosives (ATF), agreed let agent inspect Id., at 119-120; Supp.App. 5-8. But meeting with agent, then sent back He subsequently turned over ATF different kit apparently did amount machinegun. 23-24, 120; 2-5, 8-10, 13-14. prosecutor brought jury, placed him oath, asked about these matters. denied Government he spoken soon thereafter someone 19, 120-121; 11-12. claimed were false, charged perjury, making statements, obstructing justice, and, after trial, obtained convictions on all counts. 7-13, 94, 103. B parties proceeded sentencing. Initially, probation officer, help parties, background both offenses offender, prepared presentence report. See Rules Crim. Proc. 32(c)-(d); 18 U.S.C. § 3552(a). completed report describes "offense characteristics," "offender other matters might be relevant sentence, calculates sets forth factors potentially departure imposition other-than-Guidelines It ultimately makes sentencing recommendation based Guidelines. 115-136. In respect example, points out five counts conviction stem single incident. 122. Hence, pursuant Guidelines, report, calculating recommended groups together, treating them as if serious count among (and ignoring others). USSG 3D1.1. offense Rita's "perjury." Guideline, 2J1.3(c)(1), instructs court officer) calculate "perjury. . criminal offense" applying Guideline "accessory fact," offense. 2X3.1. And latter says judge, calculation purposes, should take base level, level "6 levels lower than underlying offense," (emphasis added) (the perjury may helped commit). Here "underlying consisted InterOrdnance's possible violation registration law. 124; 2M5.2 (providing 22 2778(b)(2), defense articles without authorization). 26. 2M5.2. Six less 20. applicable purposes calculation. 45. next considers "Criminal History." 125. convicted May 1986, sentenced years' connection purchase firearms. Because took place more 10 years present offense, *2461 against Rita. because no convictions, considered having "criminal history points." Ibid. places category I, lowest Guidelines' goes describe "Offender Characteristics." 126. description includes personal family data, physical condition (including detailed ailments), mental emotional health, lack any substance abuse, vocational nonvocational education, employment record. states served Armed Forces 25 years, active duty Reserve. During time received 35 commendations, awards, medals kinds. analyzes financial condition. 126-132. Ultimately, range. 132. specify 33-to-41 months' imprisonment. adds there "appears circumstance combination circumstances warrant prescribed guidelines." 133. C At hearing, presented their arguments. Each side addressed argued outside than) month judge clear argument either forms. First, argue framework, ground his "atypical case" falls "heartland" Commission intends each individual apply. 5K2.0(a)(2). Second, independent application 3553(a) (2000 ed. Supp. IV) warrants U.S., 259-260, 738. Thus, counsel, "Are you going put evidence show [Rita] getting downward departure, 3553, your client would entitled get guidelines?" 52. later summarized: "[Y]ou're asking guidelines 3553 guidelines, here are reasons: "One, vulnerable defendant he's been involved [government justice] work has caused people become criminals who prison retribution him. "Two, military experience. ." 64-65. Counsel agreed, while adding poor constituted third reason. counsel said rested claim "[j]ust [those] three" special circumstances, "[p]hysical condition, vulnerability service." 65. related three factors. Government, higher report's range, interfered Government's potential *2462 "obstruction justice" former justice employee, known better commit perjury. 74-77. questions factor. After hearing arguments, concluded "unable [report's recommended] guideline inappropriate 3553. public needs protected true, must accept true verdict." 87. concluded: "So finds appropriate enter" bottom namely imprisonment "for period 33 months." D On appeal, 33-month "unreasonable" (1) adequately account "the defendant's (2) "is greater necessary comply 3553(a)(2)." Brief Appellant 05-4674 (CA4), pp. i, 8. Fourth Circuit observed "reasonable." stated "a presumptively reasonable." added "while we believe imposing depend facts cases, reason doubt continue fall range." rejected arguments upheld (internal quotation marks omitted). E petitioned writ certiorari. pointed split presumption reasonableness within-Guidelines sentences. Compare Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 376 (C.A.D.C.2006) (uses presumption); 436 449, 457 (same); Alonzo, 435 551, 554 (C.A.5 Williams, 706, 708 (C.A.6 Mykytiuk, 415 606, 608 (C.A.7 2005) Lincoln, 413 716, 717 (C.A.8 Kristl, 437 1050, 1053-1054 (C.A.10 (same), Jimenez-Beltre, 440 514, 518 (C.A.1 (en banc) (does presumption), Fernandez, 443 27 (C.A.2 Cooper, 324, 331 (C.A.3 Talley, 431 784, 788 (C.A.11 (same). granted petition. decide circuit afford "presumption reasonableness" "within-Guidelines" District analyzed whether, given record, Court's ultimate choice II first apply district reflects conclude can. *2463 For one thing, binding. does not, like trial-related evidentiary presumption, insist side, other, shoulder particular burden persuasion proof lest lose case. C.f., Raytheon Co. Hernandez, 540 44, 49-50, n. 3, 124 513, 157 357 (2003) (citing Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 133, 143, 120 2097, 147 105 (2000), McDonnell Douglas Corp. 411 792, 802, 93 1817, 36 668 (1973)). Nor reflect strong judicial deference kind leads grant factfinding leeway expert agency judge. Rather, fact considering review, reached same conclusion That double determination significantly increases likelihood one. Further, nature Guidelines-writing task Congress manner carried task. instructing what do, referred objectives statute IV). provision tells consider offender characteristics; need aims sentencing, (a) "just punishment" (retribution), (b) deterrence, (c) incapacitation, (d) rehabilitation; (3) legally available; (4) Guidelines; (5) policy statements; (6) avoid unwarranted disparities; (7) restitution. "impose sufficient, but necessary, with" above. Congressional statutes tell write carry objectives. 28 991(b) indicates Commission's "assure [§ 3553(a)(2)]." seek "provide certainty fairness" "avoi[d] disparities," "maintai[n] sufficient flexibility permit individualized warranted mitigating aggravating taken into establishment general practices," "reflect, extent practicable [sentencing-relevant] advancement [the] knowledge human behavior." Later provisions specifically instruct reference statement itself refers 3553(a). §§ 994(f), 994(m). upshot envision carrying objectives, one, retail, wholesale. serious, sometimes controversial, effort mandate. describing its efforts, statutory provisions. tried embody considerations introductory recognizes "foresees *2464 further punishment, i.e., deterring crime, incapacitating providing just rehabilitating offender." 1A.1, intro comment., pt. A, ¶ 2 (The Statutory Mission). "sought uniformity narrowing wide disparity similar conduct," well "proportionality through system imposes appropriately conduct severity." Basic Approach). commentary explains how, despite considerable disagreement community, gone writing ends. says, goals proportionality often conflict. difficulties developing practical sensibly reconciles "philosophical problem arose attempted reconcile differing perceptions punishment." Some emphasize moral culpability punishment"; others "crime control." Rather choose philosophical "empirical approach," beginning empirical examination 10,000 reports setting judges done past modifying adjusting practice interests rationality, avoiding inconsistency, complying congressional instructions, like. 3. written examined tens thousands worked many enforcement community long fulfill They others) can differ how best disparate ends punishment. ongoing. themselves foresee continuous evolution process. courts, cases depart (either or, since non-Guidelines sentence). reasons. Courts Appeals determine resulting collect examine results. obtain advice prosecutors, defenders, groups, civil liberties associations, experts penology, others. revise accordingly. generally 994(p) note following 994 (Commission amend power revoke Guidelines); Mistretta States, 488 361, 393-394, 109 647, 102 714 (1989); 1B1.10(c) (listing 24 amendments promulgated response evolving concerns); 1A1.1, comment. result considerations, principle practice. Given abstract conflicting 3553(a)'s differences view fair assume insofar *2465 practicable, rough approximation achieve An thus decision fully consistent judgment general. Despite SOUTER's fears contrary, post, 2487-2488 (dissenting opinion), appeals' "reasonableness" rather legal effect, simply real-world judge's discretionary accords mine run probable reasonable. Indeed, even declined adopt formal recognize usually reasonable, court's offender. F.3d, 27; 331; 788. repeat appellate our explanation Booker merely asks trial abused discretion, applies only review. matter process, normally begin interpretation 3552(a); Rule 32. hear prosecution apply, perhaps (as foresee) hand 5K2.0, fails regardless. 32(f). subjects thorough adversarial testing contemplated procedure. 32(f), (h), (i)(C) (i)(D); Burns 501 129, 136, 111 2182, 115 123 (1991) (recognizing importance notice meaningful opportunity heard sentencing). determining merits enjoy benefit supporting amici make presence facts, brandishing weapon. existence facts. pro-Guidelines increase affirm such sentences, thereby increasing impose reason, raises Sixth Amendment "concerns." Petitioner 28. view, however, "sentencing facts," violate Amendment. This do automatically forbid factual determined *2466 consequence. prohibit taking findings Cunningham California, 549 ___, ___ - 856, 863-864, 166 856 (2007), supra, 243-244, 738; Blakely 542 296, 304-305, 2531, 159 403 (2004); Ring Arizona, 536 584, 602, 122 2428, 153 556 (2002); Apprendi New Jersey, 466, 471, 2348, (2000)). question, said, forbids unless concede). Blakely, 303-304, 2531 ("When inflicts punishment jury's verdict alone allow, found essential exceeds authority" citation omitted)); Cunningham, S.Ct., 865, 866 (discussing Blakely) ("The above standard finding additional deliberate cruelty," "[b]ecause Blakely's fact, top relevant" maximum purposes); 244, 738 ("Any (other prior conviction) support exceeding authorized established plea guilty admitted proved beyond doubt"); id., 232, ("We State's authorize 10-year class felonies, noting Washington law, required order 90-month sentence") original). nonbinding require Still provide jury-determined standing alone. As far concerned, disregard (higher minimum unenhanced range) absence (say, brandishing) which, statutorily permissible SCALIA concedes foresees Post, 2478 (concurring part concurring judgment). rely hypotheticals point approach adopted "raise multitude constitutional problems." Clark Martinez, 371, 380-381, 734 Similarly, agrees never prohibits ever facts" 2477. areas, times mistakes substantive. times, unreasonable. exist correct *2467 occur. Our recognized much, 260-264, unconstitutional portion mandatory. 233-234, reviewed normal principles appeals, scheme ordinarily raise concern. Ibid; 233, (opinion STEVENS, J.) ("Indeed, everyone issues avoided entirely omitted [federal statute] binding judges"). being today's holding encourage change calculus. sought diminish disparity. bring fairness increased uniformity. cause unlawful remains constitutional. And, cannot violates mean unreasonableness. Even every variance advisory 34-35. Howard, 700, 703 2006); Matheny, 450 633, 642 Myers, 439 415, 417 Moreland, 424, 433 2006). However, number circuits adhere proposition strength justification needed sustain outside-Guidelines varies proportion degree variance. Smith, 445 1, 4 434 Armendariz, 451 352, Davis, 458 491, 496 Dean, 414 725, 729 2005); Dalton, 404 1029, 1033 Bishop, 469 896, 907 Crisp, 1285, 1291-1292 Term Gall, 06-7949. appeal conflicts Congress' insistence ed., "sufficient, purposes" statute). explained above, why where hand, likely "not necessary" requirement). 2463. alleviates conflict between *2468 nothing renders unlawful. III turn particular, argues inadequate 3553(c) IV), requires "at sentencing," "state open reasons sentence." straightforward, conceptually simple here, though brief, sufficient. call "state" "reasons." requirement sound Judicial decisions reasoned decisions. Confidence underlies public's trust institution. helps assurance creates trust. read (or precedent) insisting upon full appropriateness brevity length, conciseness detail, write, say, depends circumstances. Sometimes responds argument; not; writes word "granted," "denied" face motion relying context parties' clear. leaves respect, own professional judgment. context, important. enough satisfy basis exercising decision-making authority. Taylor, 487 326, 336-337, 108 2413, 101 297 (1988). Nonetheless, decides case, so necessarily lengthy explanation. Circumstances rests reasoning (in terms 3353(a) mandates) typical typical. Unless party contests 3553(a)that unsound judgment, treat certain characteristics wayor say more. Cf. 3553(c)(2) (Although, speak length defendant, indeed serve salutary purpose.) Where presents nonfrivolous go explain brief explanation; lengthier so. To knowledge, ordinary has, applied triggers "jury trial" requirement. ("For exercises discretion select specific defined *2469 right deems relevant") 242, (requirement finding, articulation it, problem). By articulating reasons, assures reviewing public) process evolve. access to, familiarity with, court. resting filter list factors, information Commission. responses institutions constructively evolve time, foresaw. 2464-2465. circumstances: fear retaliation prison, 40-47. event, leniency record listened argument. evidence. aware various ailments takes account. understood previously immigration service detecting offenses. service, including Reserve, receipt medals, nominations. insufficient 45 months. "inappropriate." (This, course, plain understood.) immediately "appropriate." much say. acknowledge explicitly denied) thought minerun roughly cases; this, similar, reasoning, conclusion. extensively. IV final question: Was Appeals, (a applied, *2470 from, Guideline) "unreasonable"? Appeals' lawful. Part crimes issue obstruction justice. essence knowingly material impeding investigation. 6 below provided investigated (here machineguns). countable I. intersection 20 special. retaliation, His health seeking Prisons treatment. asserting threat official suffer. distinguished lead lenient impose. Like light 3553(a), provide. Finally, expressly declines relevant." 5H1.4, 5H1.5, 5H1.11. below, shall it. * foregoing Affirmed. whom GINSBURG joins II, concurring. secret remedial (2005), unanimous. 272, (STEVENS, J., dissenting). now settled accepted such. B. Cardozo, Nature Process 149 (1921) ("[T]he labor almost breaking reopened lay one's course bricks secure foundation courses laid him"). Therefore, today Booker's Judge's advisory, Simply stated, replaced de novo 3742(e) abuse-of-discretion "`reasonableness'" *2471 262, noted recent addition Prior 2003, departures abuse Koon 81, 116 2035, 135 392 (1996). overruled 3742(e). Prosecutorial Remedies Other Tools end Exploitation Children Today Act 401(d)(1), 117 Stat. 670. Recognizing th[is] revisio[n] mandatory been ... ceased holding,[1]Booker excised directed standard. 261, Critically, touch portions requiring "give due regard credibility witnesses," "accept clearly erroneous," facts." leaving intact severing mandating restored identified earlier cases: Pierce Underwood, 552, 558-560, 2541, 490 (1988), Cooter Gell Hartmarx Corp., 384, 403-405, 110 2447, 359 (1990), Koon. 260, 738.[2] Pierce, awarded attorney's fees litigation position "substantially justified" meaning Equal Access Act, 2412(d). several "significant factors" persuaded "`abuse discretion'" 559, 2541. One factor "`better positioned'" issue. 560, 2541 (quoting Miller Fenton, 474 104, 114, 106 445, 88 405 (1985)). court, participation "settlement conferences pretrial activities," "may insights conveyed worthy relied upon." likewise "even acquired acquisition come unusual expense." second *2472 significant impracticability formulating rule involve "`multifarious, fleeting, special, narrow utterly resist generalization.'" 561-562, Gell, supported "abuse-of-discretion" sanctions violations 11 Civil Procedure. 2447. factor, local bar's 404, "[d]eference front lines enhance courts' ability control litigants them." bear equally decision, context. Koon, 99, 2035. standard, unanimously "will substantial deference, embodies traditional exercise court." Id. 98, Echoing opinions, "[d]istrict institutional advantage courts" "must refined assessment bearing outcome, informed vantage day-to-day experience sentencing." Williams 503 193, 112 1112, 341 (1992): "The development regime changed except statute, `it role substitute sentence.'" 205, 1112 Solem Helm, 463 277, 290, 16, 103 3001, 77 637 (1983)). These post-Booker world. While concerned scope longer mandatory, equal force "`as 1112. assess "with 3553(a)." explained, "Section numerous guide Those past, unreasonable." Guided directs evaluate motivated decision. still always defer determination. "[i]t uniform constant tradition person unique study failings mitigate, magnify, *2473 ensue." 113, developed standards recommendations affect ranges characteristics. Matters age, medical drug alcohol addiction), history, guidance youth, ties, military, civic, charitable, 5H1.1-6, 11, 12 (Nov.2006).[3] are, authorizes consider. 3553(a)(1). such, My SOUTER understanding join SCALIA's purely procedural advocates inconsistent plainly contain substantive component. all, gives harsh Yankees fans Red Sox acting reasonably her rulings impeccable. Moreover, some future unusually yet-to-be-defined reasonableness, correctly acknowledges problem. judgment) ("Nor my violated petitioner demonstrate relatively low unreasonable jury-found facts"); ante, 2481-2482 ("Justice `raise problems.' (2005)"). Such hypothetical decided arises. Valley Forge Christian College Americans Separation Church State, 464, 472, 752, 70 700 (1982). opinion, think overestimates "gravitational pull" towards reasonableness. opinion). allowsindeed, requiresdistrict listed defendants them. Appellate *2474 give judges, inside principles. acknowledges, moreover, reasonable; genuinely rebuttable. 2462-2463. am blind matter, continued virtually Booker. 2478, 3 (SCALIA, well-respected "after watching Courtand formally notaffirm hundreds seems me rebuttability theoretical real." Pruitt, 1298, 2007 WL 1589409, *11 2007) (McConnell, concurring). clear, real. individually deferentially subject "presumption" reasonableness) clarity holding, treated during interregnum truly advisory. Applying Although Judge, agree did. flaw procedure veteran recognition country. aspect consideration mentioned Judge received. omission especially If convinced case society dealt fairlythe successful rehabilitation surely enhanced. Nevertheless, paying SCALIA, THOMAS joins, Justices Court, them, previous (2004), judges. reaffirmed "[a]ny *2475 doubt." majority remedy nonmandatory 258-265, disagreed choice, believing instead maintain character require, small imposed, defendant. 272-291, joined SOUTER, JJ., dissenting part). reopen debate. stare decisis, bound today, precisely entails dictated lamented then, "[t]he worst feature knowsand meant knowhow `unreasonableness' function practice." 311, Earlier Term, intensified silence flesh mind form implications. ALITO defended constitutionality California's arguing post-Booker, encompassed plea. 867, majority's response, cryptic. incorrect, strongly intimated premise wrong: erroneously "anticipate[d]" "reasonableness operates 15, 870, 15. squarely pending, "neither nor matter," suggesting revealed today. 13, 868, 13. arrived, broken promise. Nothing why, scheme, judge-found justify failed establish implicitly, quite plainly, petitioner's challenge substantively excessive. IV. Under reversed excessive present; *2476 affirmed (i.e., lawful) distinguish mine-run. attempt No possible. reintroduced defect purported eliminate. acquiesce course. lawfully preponderance evidence, left compulsory enacted, jerry-rigged own. possibility violation, object remedy, able, embraced plea, Because, therefore, reverse within-range too high; contend intended low; component all. believe, nevertheless opinion. Two suffice reveal notion inexorably produces, Amendment, whose legality premised facts) brothers backgrounds histories respectively robbing banks money. Next brother, fueled racial animus, targeted bank owned operated minorities, whereas brother selected location enabled quick getaway. Further brothers, basing primarily perception robbery punished severely advises, racially biased decisionmaking justified Now imagine reverses nonracist brother. dual holdings racist valid hence motive selecting victim.[1] *2477 common substantially enhanced 2B3.1(a) (Nov.2006), corresponds 33-41 months, ch. 5, Table. If, firearm discharged, victim incurred bodily injury, $5 million stolen, jumps 18, 2B3.1(b)(2), (3), (7), producing 235-293 When 293 discretion; predicate 293-month failure render evident because, none (simply thinks seven provide) unreasonably stylized ways illustrating system, Every excessiveness implicitly justifying otherwise difference pre-Booker specified case-by-case fashion, former. is, anything, disease, cure. repeatedly 481, (2000). fundamental difference, underpinning entire jurisprudence, lawful, discretion. former, latter, "to intelligible content trial." 305, 2531.[2] *2478 contending affirmation direct relevance 2465-2467.[3] inevitably reveals reality dooms construct things plain. contained Reform 1984(SRA). 260-261, wanted schemes depending problems cases. 265-267, contours narrowed concerns, Congress's desire composing total agreement day decided: "[W]hen deciding plausible constructions adopt, consequences choice. problems, prevail pertain litigant Court." (2005) by, inter alios, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ.). *2479 Yet offering rebuttal charge patent inherent comfort opinionthough excuse Martinez's interpretive principleis as-applied challenges Ante, 2466-2467; 2473 concurring).[4] Had bothered frame objections analysis undertaken four conceivable candidates. 1 simplistic objection Congress. errs wrong according Reasonableness 3742 really type common-law prescribe Neither progeny suggests branch government prescription. flatly 237-239, good reservation power." 308, 2531. legislature, usurps prerogative. Were otherwise, invalidated. California effectively trial-court conform pre-Cunningham minimizes uphold, *2480 lengthiest dependent small. goes, altogether: Absent it? already line interpretation. 2462-2464. terms, improper ensures invalidated attribute results pleas overwhelming perfectly accord 248, 275-277, key governing eliminate entirely. conjured-up accomplish goal, supplanted congressionally enacted Guidelines? Court-prescribed nonetheless allowing forward produce chaos. Most resemble hypotheticals, unable figure out, comparison stop argument, certainly foreclosed trying. 2463-2464, 4. Judges theory options: create complicated charts databases, precedents, ascertain sentences; deaf ear claims, knowing justified. bet latter.[5] Things readily identify violated, Proponents actual involves dozens real world, contend, difficult, impossible, *2481 imposed. identifying fatal violation. sufficed bounds (indeed, said) effectand suffices "Whether authority ..., acquires fact." last Guidelines-light wrap mantle tradition. prohibited text Bill Rights bears endorsement open, widespread, unchallenged dates Republic, striking down. venerable examining table scrutinized conformity [constitutional] adjudication devised traditions stuff formed." Rutan Republican Party Ill., 497 62, 95-96, 2729, 52 (1990) dissenting) (footnote here. SRA, essentially exist. Dorszynski 418 431, 94 3042, 855 (1974) (noting once limitations end"); 443, 3042 ("[W]ell-established doctrine bars discretion"). state late 1962, least 39 modify limits. Review Sentences, Symposium Conference Second Circuit, 32 F.R.D. 249, 260 (1962). exaggeration historical pedigree overcome jury-trial Apprendi, Cunningham. invoke intent intent: Of imposed; whole indulge newfound *2482 intent, reimpose system. quasi-Guidelines manages contravene "intent" opinion: divining compelled. 263-265, sustain, fail understand possibly composed majority. intend override academic itself," confirmed "[t]here revision essayed [Justice ALITO's Cunningham] dissent." 15 J.). Abandoning return pre-SRA avoid. outset, effect Specifically, limit procedures mandated statute. central SRA completely inseverable. result, "remains place, collecting decisions, undertaking research, revising accordingly." 264, Likewise, remain obligated delineated nowadvisory instructed subsection paragraph [that] subsection." Significantly, continues requisite detail is: range; spans months; explanations, turn, practices goals. IV)). retention furthered purpose "iron[ing] differences," 263, "avoid[ing] police observance. containing (invalidating *2483 IV)), creation gave means that: appears 3553(a); impermissible factors; selects erroneous facts; 3553(c)'s reasons.[6] uniformity, indirectly produce, reduction disparities. ensuring decline follow enable perform desirable courts. occurs, recommendations, leading uniformity.[7] 3742(f) limits reversing "in law" "as incorrect guidelines," 3742(f)(1), categories "too high" low," 3742(f)(2).[8] But, inextricably intertwined: Having 3742(e)'s nonsensical 3742(f)'s "Decision Disposition" track now-excised standards. 306-307, "incapable functioning independently" inseverable Alaska Airlines, Inc. Brock, 480 678, 684, 107 1476, *2484 L.Ed.2d 661 (1987); Singer, Sutherland Statutes Construction 44:4, p. 576 (6th 2001) ("Even act valid, invalid separate invalid"). discussion part. 2468-2469. unexplained unconstitutional, Court-created substantive-review contains not. irresponsible leave inconsistency hanging air, threatening yet another major adjust. Procedural rest, comporting achieving Constitution permits. dissenting. current gotten complicated, coming cold wonder point. very overview eight perspective. Members guaranteed impartial residents State relies details, instincts legislators implementation Litigation size, Ballew Georgia, 223, 98 55 234 (1978) (prohibiting five-person juries six), unanimity, Apodaca Oregon, 406 92 1628, 184 (1972) (allowing nonunanimous trials); Burch Louisiana, 441 130, 99 1623, 60 96 (1979) six-person juries). James "cash-value" Constitution's guarantee. W. James, Pragmatism: Name Old Ways Thinking 200 (1st ed.1907). legitimate guilty. Since inception acted learn gather sentencing), details returned answered question. historically, also, customary extraverdict advance defining York, 337 241, 246-247, 69 1079, 1337 (1949). traditionally 0-to-5 high *2485 admitted), implicit 5-year background, Jones 526 227, 119 1215, 143 311 (1999), attention value right. prosecuted exemplified growing definition penalty variants penalties arguably sitting solely carjacking, causing "`serious injury'" shown, jumped 25. 230, 1215 2119 (1988 V)). extra injury raising up element Jones, 1215. unsettling prosecutions guilt innocence liability penalty. death, life giving exclusive mere gatekeeper approval. adequate objection, himself curtail liberty unsuspected modesty. accordingly suspect avoidance interpreted What enhancement factfinding. obviated subjecting unwilling onerous away inescapably, exposing exclusively waiver; subjected *2486 490, 2348.[1] constitutionally point, raised functioned ostensibly tied waiver, weightier enhancing placing disputed off when, maintained verdict, trivialized extended (over objection) upper From moment drew line, apparent implications 1984, Stat.1987, 3551 et seq. 991 eminently laudable promoting consistency crime. elementary creating divides subranges assigns subrange offender's history. assigned 3553(b)(1) follows matter) designated comparable elements itself. hybrid emphasizing stress principal motivation eliminating forbidding determination). way looking sense, something preserving significance 305-306, *2487 Apprendi. way, jeopardy: legislature free bypass abnormally spacious (theoretically highest verdict), supplementary end. spell protection shored up. too, subranges, absent waiver. So far, step began falter. survive, alternatives. foresight Guidelines: submitted True, ahead emerged unexpectedly trial). preserved, goal served, erosion. alternative declaration discretionary, strictly alternative, subsidiary (independently departure), seemed simple: issues, reconfigured us. now-discretionary rejection threaten old presumably disuniformity place. attributed gravitational pull persuasive appropriate, preserve threatened trivialize tend regularly done, subrange. door undermining itself, happened *2488 Without powerful risk reversal faced disparagement prediction weakened whit "appellate" 2464-2465 deleted). works determines views weighty 2463-2465, easier unorthodox moves closer flagged ask accomplished associated Taking (of Guidelines) given, carries Only assured available (calling "across board"). replicating appeal-proof therefore reject pernicious retain aid rejecting preferred odds Congress; bringing objective attained, restore mind, measure trial. heart reenact originally had, judicial, guarantee robust respectfully dissent.[2] NOTES [1] doubted broad [Sentencing 1984] judges" (citations omitted)). [2] equated new used departures. ("`Reasonableness' foreign circumstancesboth departures, 3742(e)(3) (1994 ed.), 3742(a)(4), (b)(4), (e)(4)" added)). [3] Breyer, Key Compromises Upon Which Rest, 17 Hofstra L.Rev. 19-20 (1988) extensively debated sentencing; reflection constitute grounds .... Eventually, uncertainty actually and/or rules look records convictions" (footnotes animus undeniable filled role. (2004). created equivalent judicially minimums, concern Harris 545, 568-569, 2406, 524 (2002). one-way ratchet, 257-258, 266, forswear abandon concept high. dissent. wishes "district [assurance] 2488. goalindeed, prevent overturning Blakely. employ excessive, York Council Defense Lawyers Amicus Curiae refuting belief elimination destroy pull," 2487 (SOUTER, dissenting), stay safely assure deviate ensure choices [4] reliance problems. 2466; Setting volume principle, ignores hypothetical, routinely months decades centuries factsas recognized, 236-237, (citing, alia, 57 155 years). [5] Perhaps cynical. conscientious ascertaining precedent, concluding mandates Griffin, 05-10175-WGY, F.Supp.2d 1620526, *13-*14 (D.Mass., 6, (Young, D.J.) (Sentencing Memorandum). [6] "Substance" "procedure" admittedly chameleon-like terms. Sun Oil Wortman, 486 717, 726-727, 2117, 100 743 indicates, term limiting onesas opposed using reaching "substantively" wrong. disagree STEVENS discriminates procedurally "impeccable" way. [7] resist, temptation stringent table. conducting severability limited balance capable "of independently." (1987). add excised. engaging complied requirements existed pre-Booker. [8] "possible" 3553's covered 3742(f)(1). 3742(f)(1)'s applicability errors 3742(f)(2), addresses [mandated 3553(c)(2)]." text, grapple, 3742(f). exception rule, permitting convicted. 489-490, 2348; Almendarez-Torres 523 224, 118 1219, 140 350 (1998). resort reach

Classification Label: 0