Legal Document

501 U.S. 129 111 S.Ct. 2182 115 L.Ed.2d 123 William J. BURNS, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 89-7260. Argued Dec. 3, 1990. Decided June 13, 1991. Syllabus A plea agreement with the Government recited that petitioner Burns would plead guilty to three counts and stated parties' expectation his sentence fall within a particular offense-level/criminal-history range under United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines. The probation officer, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, filed presentence report in which he confirmed sentencing be 30 37 months concluded there were no factors warrant departure from Guidelines sentence. Although neither party any objections report, District Court announced, at end hearing, it was departing upward and, based upon grounds, sentenced 60 months' imprisonment. Appeals affirmed sentence, concluding that, although subdivision (a)(1) 32 requires district court afford parties "an opportunity comment officer's determination on other matters relating appropriate sentence" inappropriate impose requirement notify its intent make sua sponte absence express language effect. Held: Before can depart applicable ground not identified for such either or prehearing submission Government, give reasonable notice is contemplating ruling, specifically identifying departure. Pp. 132-139. (a) In order eliminate unwarranted disparities uncertainty associated indeterminate pre-existing system, Reform Act 1984 courts determine sentences various offense- offender-related Under Act, may disregard Guidelines' mechanical dictates only finding an aggravating mitigating circumstance adequately considered Commission. amended assure focused, adversarial development factual legal issues relevant determining Although, ordinarily, Government's recommendation will defendant issue facts allegedly support it, case where, here, departs range. 132-135. (b) textual contextual evidence legislative indicates Congress did intend without first affording parties. contrary reading renders meaningless right 32(a)(1) "comment [relevant] matters," since has little reality worth unless one informed decision contemplated. also inconsistent 32's purpose. interpretation critical go untested process every parties, lacking notice, failed anticipate unannounced uninvited Furthermore, meaning attaches Congress' silence decisions which, despite statutory language, this construed statutes authorizing analogous deprivations liberty property require affected individuals both meaningful heard. See, e.g., American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 90, 107-108, 67 133, 143-144, 91 L.Ed. 103. Since confront serious question whether mandated Due Process Clause, construe dispense setting absent clear statement congressional Edward DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Building Construction Trades Council, 485 568, 575, 108 1392, 1397, 99 645. 135-138. 282 U.S.App.D.C. 194, 893 F.2d 1343 (1990), reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SOUTER, dissenting opinion, WHITE O'CONNOR, joined, Part I REHNQUIST, C.J., Steven H. Goldblatt, petitioner. Stephen Marzen, respondent. Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 established notifying intends depart. We hold not. 2 * Petitioner employed Agency International Development (AID) 1967 until 1988. Between 1982 1988, used position supervisor agency's Financial Management Section authorize payment AID funds into bank account controlled him name fictitious person. During period, 53 fraudulent payments totaling over $1.2 million paid account. 3 Following detection scheme, agreed three-count information charging theft funds, 18 U.S.C. § 641, making false claims against 287, attempted tax evasion, 26 7201. corresponding offense level 19 criminal history category I. 4 officer found months. concluded: "There are guideline sentence." App. 21. Both reviewed it. 5 Nonetheless, conclusion announced set forth reasons departure: (1) extensive duration petitioner's conduct; (2) disruption governmental functions caused (3) use evasion conceal offenses. Based these considerations, 6 On appeal, argued Rules obliged furnish advance Columbia Circuit rejected contention observed . contains requiring departures determined language. See 199, 1343, 1348 (1990). 7 By contrast, several Circuits have does provide range.1 granted certiorari resolve conflict. 497 ----, 110 3270, 780 now reverse. II A. 8 revolutionized manner persons convicted federal crimes. generally Mistretta States, 488 361, 363-367, 109 647, 649-652, 102 714 (1989). content define broad ranges, leaving imposition those ranges discretion individual judges, exercised case-by-case basis. Now, "guidelines" system initiated judges offense-related §§ 3553(a)(4), (b). purpose reform "unwarranted disparit[ies] uncertainty" sentencing. S.Rep. 98-225, p. 49 (1983). when finds "that exists kind, degree, taken consideration ." 3553(b). 9 Procedural reforms, too, necessary achieve goal assuring "certainty fairness" 28 991(b)(1)(B). As Commission explained: 10 "In pre-guidelines practice, often informal fashion. informality some extent explained fact offender characteristics rarely had highly specific consequence. This situation longer exist guidelines. court's resolution disputed usually measurable effect punishment. More formality therefore unavoidable if accurate fair. When dispute about factor important determination, must ensure adequate present information." Comm'n, Manual 6A1.3, official commentary (1990) (emphasis added). 11 provides frames directing prepare addressing all germane defendant's Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(c)(2).2 At least days before sentencing, disclosed see 32(c)(3)(A), (C), whom contemplate then afforded file responses court, 6A1.2, commentary.3 Finally, "[a]t [must] counsel attorney involves aspect procedures surrounding sentencing: entitled range.4 ordinary case, own departure.5 Here we deal extraordinary initiative expectations decides predicates satisfied. us Congress, enacting intended free believe answer clearly no. B 12 forth, contemplates full adversary testing mandates given 32(a)(1). Obviously, legally factually warranted "matte[r] our view, makes sense impute appropriateness but notified ruling. 13 arguing situation, derives decisive silence. observes, expressly obliges days' contents report. Because contain like provision obliging announce sponte, concludes deny setting. 14 find analysis unconvincing. aptly put "[n]ot pregnant." State Illinois Dept. Public Aid Schweiker, 707 273, 277 (CA7 1983). cases, rule out application, while others signifies merely nothing more need said effectuate objective. An inference drawn certainly cannot credited intent. 15 Such text because "to "Th[e] heard informed" Mullane Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 306, 314, 70 652, 657, 94 865 (1950). especially true place essentially limit number potential departure, see, Ch. 1, A, Introduction 4(b), guess what grounds might depart, much less "comment" possibility coherent way. construction "silence" thus render absurd. Cf. Green Bock Laundry Machine 490 504, 527, 1981, 1994, 104 557 (1989) (SCALIA, concurring judgment) (when "confronted statute interpreted literally, produces absurd, perhaps unconstitutional result[,] [o]ur task alternative [to statute] avoids consequence"). 16 asks draw promoting fixing sentences. best, rendering address possible random wasteful way trying negate conceivable choose initiative. worst, likely, even try development; where nor suggested defense reluctant suggest rebutting fail contemplated 17 Lastly, completely opposite attached variety settings. Notwithstanding readily 103 (1946) (statute permitting Securities Exchange corporate dissolution); Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 86, 99-101, 23 611, 614-615, 47 721 (1903) exclusion aliens seeking enter States). likewise inferred protections essential procedural fairness. Kent 383 541, 557, 86 1045, 1055, 84 (1966) (right full, adversary-style representation juvenile transfer proceedings); Greene McElroy, 360 474, 495-508, 79 1400, 1413-1420, 1377 (1959) adverse witnesses security-clearance revocation Wong Yang Sung McGrath, 33, 48-51, 445, 453-455, 616 (1950) formal hearing deportation proceedings). read Clause. state providing decline intention Congress. 645 (1988) ("[W]here otherwise acceptable raise constitutional problems, avoid problems plainly Congress"). III identify departure.6 20 receive 32. Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 So ordered. 22 O'CONNOR join, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins I, dissenting. today imposes rule. Court's rests failure appreciate detail (in amending provisions) followed imposing case. carefully calibrated scheme sort words quotes, ante, 6, pregnant, notice. accomplishes " 'not [rule], but, effect, enlargement court.' West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. Casey, 499 1138, 1148, 113 68 (1991), quoting Iselin 270 245, 251, 46 248, 250, 566 (1926) (Brandeis, J.). creation justified Rule, respectfully dissent. 24 requirements numerous. Unless findings justify dispensing investigation, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32(c)(1), includes, inter alia, "information defendant"; "the classification categories believes case"; committed guidelines issued Commission"; explanation indicate different kind length circumstances." Fed.Rules 32(c)(2)(A) (B). 25 same guarantees court. "shall "determine discuss" speak information. 32(a)(1)(A). "opportunity introduce testimony alleged inaccuracy contained it." 32(c)(3)(A). itself, "not including final sentence," most respects defendant, counsel, waives 32(c)(3)(A) (C); 3552(d). Even "[p]rior shall pursuant provisions (c)(2)(B), classifications believed case." 27 Guidelines, formulating should result described." judge who "state open reason described," 3553(c)(2), outside appealed. 3742(a(3), (b)(3). For attentive concern procedure, contends implicit 32(a)(1)1 mandating matter effectively "matter" explicitly; accordingly, argument runs, desire comment. 136-137. 29 difficulty reasoning terms reflect decided disinclination rely presuppositions silent intentions explicit requirements. entitles copy than (subject qualifications here), directs discuss imposed. What remarkable them (save guarantee 10-day notice) superfluous reasoning. It fair say, example, range, determinations they are, implies determinations. And yet leave force implication provided cases one. slightly compelling argue affecting read, discuss, respect yet, again, drafters result, relying disclose. 31 Given reliance disclosure reasonably been rights comment, great significance differential treatment meant disclosure, careful explicit, predeparture here bespeaks given. General Motors 496 2528, 480 seeks rewriting asserting interpreting written "absurd," "rende[r] meaningless" "other conferred Rule. Ante, authorized embellish handiwork interest enduing additional meaning, however, terms, save meaninglessness. 33 First, phrase includes wide beyond inclination existence indicating Lack just matter" (the option upward) entire meaningless. 34 Second, regard hardly erroneous equivalent complete 3553(b), itself puts always possibility, their possibility. Indeed, record demonstrates gear part indication closed remarks asking period incarceration limited enough family return to, future work towards rebuilding,and think Your Honor. ask Honor consider guidelines." 45 35 useful helping focus so judicial legislation. "we statutes, possible, parts thereof," Astoria Savings Loan Assn. Solimino, 2166, --- ---- practice supplement simply usefully do duty assigned it.2 36 raising problems. 138. canon construction, applies avoided 'reasonable construction,' added), statute. problem "construction" anything light emphatic prior departures, comes closer reconstruction construction. event, "raise problems." Ibid. Because, proceed raises conclusion.3 38 begin proposition process, well trial satisfy Clause." Gardner Florida, 430 349, 358, 97 1197, 1204, 51 393 (1977) (plurality opinion). threshold, course, subject due protection, expectancy created Nebraska Greenholtz Inmates Penal Correctional Complex, 442 2100, 668 (1979). act directed parole board, considering release eligible prisoner, 'shall deferred because' four criteria met. Id., 11, S.Ct., 2106; Cleveland Bd. Ed. Loudermill, 470 532, 538-541, 105 1487, 1491-1492, 494 (1985); Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 558, 2963, 2975, 41 935 (1974). creates similar presumption "[t]he structure. 599-600, 2502-2503. called "a general approach challenged claim," id., 599, 2502, recognized "[w]hile proper [the medical] questions, step process." 609, 2507. Greenholtz, relied Mathews realizing Parole Board's "necessarily subjective predictive part," entailed exercise "very discretion," U.S., 2107, none bases denying mere historical fact. 2106. Ingraham Wright, 651, 1401, 711 (1977), holding infliction corporal punishment, applied though "risk error" mistaken, apart mistake punishment inflicted "unnecessarily excessively." 678, 1416. whenever action infringe individual's protected interest, framework well. 39 factor, lively consequences imprisonment double low recommended receiving unlawfully higher upper substantial. 40 Neither, insignificant decide given, seems likely postpone shortly considered. To postponement, schedule time spent review recovered subtracting subsequent almost already lengthened considerably new scheme. Report Courts Study Committee 137 (90 percent survey made time-consuming; increase 50 sentencing). Thus, avoiding drain resources already-overburdened judges. Cf., Advisory Committee's Notes U.S.C.App., 798 (declining uses burden placed judge").4 With each having substantial interests, second element analysis. risk error required, probable value sufficiently current passes muster imposed today. 42 sources could infect conclusions thought These propositions presented challenge evidentiary 32(c)(3)(A).5 practical adequacy chance statements significant degree lack unfavorably harm influencing high disquieting drive point itself. No procedure existing law effective minimize resting 43 source inheres application authorization. Of codified risk, albeit normally one, stray outer question, event rehearing appeal allow correction. There is, peculiar 1984, reflected chosen reflection goes intentions, uniformly, correctly, treated customary appellate review.6 Whether suffices depends effectiveness enhanced, obviated, judge's concerns stage. 44 If litigation questioning commissioners' processes, discovering introducing documentary unavailable litigate indispensable, virtually definition. But "of Commission," ibid., proof. turn developed documented administrative available litigation, presentation evidence. able affect initial view reflecting circumstance, principal safeguard serving extra resulting still applied, law. post-trial deprivation flow question.7 onerous permit permissible, defendant. assessing implications decision, pausing nature occur ultimate sentence's duration. concept predicate fairly obvious, conclusiveness equally straightforward. Error understood discretionary function decision. 48 deserves underlying premises fact, law, quantified, precision, reach only. rather, spectrum arguably reasonable, cf. Wasman 468 559, 563, 3217, 3220, 82 424 (1984) (under pre-Guidelines permitted statute); Tucker, 404 443, 446-447, 92 589, 591, 592 (1972) (same), actually falls zone reasonableness. two forced serve unreasonably long. first, apprised possible. noted earlier, mind. Petitioner's contended range" asked 45. matter, chooses specifically, pleas leniency duplicate arguments motive 543, 1494 (even clear, be). unreasonable "If appeals determines [and] too aside remand instructions considers appropriate." 3742(f)(2)(A). While good enhance benefit. impetus stand comprehensive supplemented 3553(c), difficult imagine how conducive claim high. indeed, substantiality why lies scope demands. exact requires, arise virtue discretion. Rather, incremental advantage obtain knowledge thinking consist allowing precise influence reasonableness allows. advantage, any, reduced improved tailor zone. knowing mind debatable, new. Litigants desired greater opportunities permissible limits. surprise enhanced requires. 16, 2108. today: reduce Dixon Love, 431 105, 114, 1723, 1728, 52 172 (1977). sum, resort requirement. echoes inmate's early parole, comparable shorter Board inmates "written together list considered." 14, n. 6. held suffice "infor[m] inmate month during day pos[t] time," include rely. closely resembles "list factors" constitutionally unnecessary Greenholtz. policy. Clause basis today's holding. 54 Palta, 880 636, 640 (CA2 1989); Nuno-Para, 877 1409, 1415 (CA9 Otero, 868 1412, (CA5 1989). Pursuant 32(c)(2), record; Guidelines; (c) pertinent policy Commission; (d) impact victims; (e) incarceration, orders otherwise; (f) requested implemented directive through local rules respond objections. U.S.Dist.Ct. MD Ala.Rules 33(a)-(c); D DC 311(a)-(c); ND Fla.Gen.Rules 23(b)-(d); Ill.Crim.Rules 2.06(g)-(i); ED-MD-WD La.Rules 16M(a)-(c); D.Minn.Rules 83.10(c)-(d); EDNC 50.03-50.05; Ohio Crim.Rules 10.05(2)(b)-(d); WD Okla.Rules 42(E)(1)-(3); ED Tenn.Rules 27.3-27.5; Tex.Rules 10.9(b)-(e); Va.Rules 14(1)-(3); D.Wyo.Rules 219(c)-(f). frame downward enjoy equal entitlements. writing, 49(a) served timing us, issue. lower courts, remain adopt ("Courts narrowing resolution, feasible, hearing"). supra (listing govern report). provides: "Sentence delay, may, capable being resolved, resolved. Prior also— "(A) investigation (c)(3)(A) summary thereof puruant (c)(3)(B); "(B) behalf defendant; "(C) personally wishes mitigation "The Upon motion jointly hear camera Government." stops short explicitly 6A1.3 requirement, lengthy quotation Commentary provision, bears mention. addresses disputes presence characteristics. Introductory Chapter Six (of part) states "[t]his sets establishing based." (Emphasis added.) deals fact-based disputes, bear once established, amounts "readily heard," 137-138 original) (citing cases), inapposite. cited involved whatsoever hearing. gives possibility; [147] [set Guidelines,] Commission." 3553(b) conclude enjoys protection presumptively defined justifying "what due." Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 481, 2593, 2600, 484 (1972). ' "[D]ue process," unlike rules, technical conception fixed unrelated time, circumstances,' Cafeteria Workers 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961), "flexible[, calling] demands." Morrissey, supra, 2600. methodology demands Eldridge, 319, 96 893, (1976), prescribed three-part inquiry "[f]irst, private action; second, used, value, substitute safeguards; finally, fiscal burdens entail." 335, 903. concerned factfinding procedures, confined contexts situations simple sole determinant action. Parham R., 584, 2493, 61 101 (1979), addressed constitutionality Georgia's involuntarily admitting child mental hospital, conceivably postponing pending reducing contemporaneous warning sharpen counsel's rhetoric, help enabling previously contest, preparing circumstance. Contemporaneous would, then, probably substantive (and offered result) unlikely add substantially therefore, implicates modest government efficiency, sufficient balance de minimis benefit defense. explain below, error, minimal process. Every except Fifth held, 196, 1345 "plenary" "de novo appropriate. Diaz-Villafane, 874 43, (CA1), cert. denied, 493 177, 107 133 (1989); Lara, 905 602 1990); Ryan, 866 604, 610 (CA3 Chester, 919 896, 900 (CA4 Rodriguez, 882 1059, 1067 (CA6 1989), 1144, 1048 (1990); Williams, 901 1394, 1396 1990), pending, 90-5849; Whitehorse, 909 316, 318 (CA8 Singleton, 917 411, 412 Dean, 908 1491, (CA10 Russell, 512, 515 (CA11 1427, 479 (1991). "acceptable." Murillo, 902 1169, 1172 class defendants ability court: recommend disposition authority successful come late undo damage done However, judged generality applies, large majority group definition them." Walters National Radiation Survivors, 473 305, 330, 3180, 3194, 87 220 (1985). calculus

Classification Label: 0