Legal Document

543 U.S. 220125 S.Ct. 738160 L.Ed.2d 621 UNITED STATES, Petitioner 04-104v.Freddie J. BOOKERUNITED PETITIONER 04-105v.Ducan FANFANSUPREME COURT OF THE STATES OCTOBER TERM, 2004 Nos. 04-104 and 04-105 Argued October 4, January 12, 20051Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion amended 24, 2005 SYLLABUS BY Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, sentence authorized by jury verdict in respondent Booker's drug case was 210-to-262 months prison. At sentencing hearing, judge found additional facts a preponderance of evidence. Because these findings mandated between 360 life, gave Booker 30-year instead 21-year, 10-month, he could have imposed based on proved to beyond reasonable doubt. The Seventh Circuit held that this application Guidelines conflicted with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490, holding "[o]ther than fact prior conviction, any increases penalty for crime prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted jury, doubt." Relying Blakely Washington, 542 ___, court violated Sixth Amendment instructed District Court either within range supported jury's or hold separate hearing before jury. In Fanfan's case, under 78 Judge evidence authorizing 188-to-235-month range, which would required him impose 15-or 16-year 5 6 years alone. Blakely's majority opinion, statements its opinions, Solicitor General's brief Blakely, concluded not follow solely upon guilty case. Government filed notice appeal First petition certiorari judgment Court. Held: Appeals No. is affirmed, remanded. vacated, 04-104, 375 F. 3d 508, affirmed remanded; 04-105, vacated Justice Stevens delivered part, concluding as construed applies Guidelines. Pp. 5-20. 1 (a) addressing Washington State's determinate scheme, Jones United States, 526 227; 466; Ring Arizona, 536 584, made clear "that `statutory maximum' purposes may basis reflected admitted defendant." S., at ___. As opinions recognized, there no constitutionally significant distinction procedure issue This conclusion rests premise, common both systems, relevant rules are mandatory binding requirements all judges. Were merely advisory -- recommending, but requiring, selection particular sentences response differing sets their use implicate Amendment. However, Title 18 C. A. §3553(b) directs "shall kind, range" established subject departures specific, limited cases. they judges, has consistently force effect laws. Further, availability departure where "finds ... an aggravating mitigating circumstance degree, adequately taken into consideration Commission formulating guidelines should result different from described," §3553(b)(1), does avoid constitutional issue. Departures unavailable most cases because will factors account, legally permissible. those instances, bound range. illustrates point. possessing least 50 grams crack cocaine, had 92.5 grams. facts, possible 210-to-262-month sentence. To reach actual almost 10 longer possessed 566 crack. Although, never heard such evidence, it true Thus, "the alone authorize acquires authority only finding some fact." Finally, were failed consider, higher 5-12. 2 (b) Government's arguments position reasoning applied unpersuasive. promulgated Commission, rather Congress, irrelevant. previously considered question, same principles apply Court's pre-Apprendi considering inapplicable, did consider separation powers concerns present here, rejected Mistretta. Mistretta even though performed political adjudicatory functions, Congress exceed limitations creating Commission. 488 393, 388. That remains regardless whether labeled "sentencing factors" "elements" crimes. 13-20. 3 Breyer makes mandatory, incompatible today's "jury trial" therefore severed excised Reform Act 1984 (Act). Section 3742(e), depends Guidelines' nature, also excised. So modified, effectively advisory, requiring ranges, see §3553(a)(4), permitting tailor light other concerns, §3553(a). 2-26. 4 Answering remedial question requires determination what "Congress intended" holding. E.g., Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. FCC, 518 727, 767. Here, decide two approaches more compatible Congress' intent embodied Act: (1) retaining (and Guidelines) written, requirement engrafted onto it; (2) eliminating Act's provisions. Evaluation requirement's consequences language, history, basic demonstrates written severance excision) necessary. likely preferred total invalidation it, excision language entire Act. 2-6. Several considerations demonstrate adding currently so transform scheme intended modified stand. First, references "[t]he court" §3553(a)(1) when nature circumstances offense history characteristics defendant" judge" read context mean without jury," working together jury." §3661, removes typical information" concerning offender "court receive." Second, goal diminishing disparity success judicial efforts determine, base punishment upon, real conduct underlying conviction. looking conduct, federal judges long relied probation officer's presentence report, often until after trial. engraft destroy system preventing relying report factual information uncovered Third, Act, include requirement, create far complex intended, thereby greatly complicating tasks prosecution, defense, judge, Fourth, plea bargaining significantly diminish operation make matters worse, leading greater weight counsel's skill, prosecutor's policies, caseload, vary place place, defendant defendant, crime. Fifth, enacted statutes difficult adjust upward them downward, yet create. For reasons, cannot remain valid entirety. Severance 6-15. (c) need invalidated, since perfectly valid. order "invalidat[e] statute necessary," Regan Time, Inc., 468 641, 652, retain portions valid, ibid., capable "functioning independently," Alaska Airlines, Brock, 480 678, 684, (3) consistent objectives enacting statute, Regan, supra, 653. Application criteria courts applicable (absent justifying departure), §3742(e), provides de novo review departures, With sections cross-references consequently invalidated), rest satisfies falls outside scope 466. still take account goals, §3553(a)(4); category committed defendant," pertinent policy statements, unwarranted disparities restitute victims, §§3553(a)(1), (3)-(7); reflect seriousness offense, promote respect law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect public, needed training medical care, §3553(a)(2). Moreover, despite §3553(b)(1)'s absence, continues appeals decisions (irrespective trial range). See §§3742(a) (b). Excision forth appellate standards, pose critical problem. Appropriate standards inferred related statute's structure, "sound administration justice." Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 559-560. past decades practice involving imply familiar practical standard review: "unreasonable[ness]." See, e.g., §3742(e)(3) (1994 ed.). provision "unwarranted [and] maintai[n] sufficient flexibility permit individualized warranted," 28 §991(b)(1)(B), perform duties, §994, district consult sentencing, unreasonableness. preserve important pre-existing elements while severing excising §§3553(b) 3742(e) maintain provisions scheme. 15-22. 7 (d) Other remedies including, parties' proposals Constitution prohibits factfinding rejected. 22-24. 8 (e) On remand accordance and, if comes review, set opinion. Fanfan choose) seek resentencing opinions. dispositions indicate, interpretation direct review. Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 328. every give rise violation lead new hearing. reviewing expected ordinary prudential doctrines, determining, raised below fails "plain-error" test. It because, violation, warranted reasonableness depend harmless-error doctrine. 24-25. 9 Stevens, J., Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, joined, joined except Part III footnote 17. part. O'Connor Writ Of Certiorari States Before Judgment Below: 508 11 Acting General Clement argued cause Assistant Attorney Wray, Deputy Dreeben, James Feldman, Dan Himmelfarb, Nina Goodman. 12 T. Christopher Kelly 04-104. Dean Strang. Rosemary Curran Scapicchio 04-105. her Carter G. Phillips, Jeffrey Green, Eric Shumsky, Martin Weinberg. 13 Briefs amici curiae urging reversal K. Robinson, Charles R. Tetzlaff, Pamela O. Barron; Honorable Orrin Hatch et al. Gregory Garre. 14 affirmance Families Against Mandatory Minimums L. Poe, Roy Englert, Jr., Max Huffman, Mary Price; Public Defender, Northern Texas, Ira Kirkendoll Carlos Cardona; National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Samuel Buffone, David Stewart, Thomas Goldstein, Amy Howe, M. Porter; Defenders Paul Rashkind, Carol Brook, Henry Bemporad, Frances H. Pratt; York Council Alexandra E. Shapiro Lewis Liman; Legal Foundation Donald B. Verrilli, Elaine Goldenberg, Daniel Popeo, D. Kamenar; Liotti, Mr. pro se. 15 John Martin, Ad Hoc Group Former Judges 16 by: Stevens2 220 (2005) 17 presented each severity lawfully his rejected, our decision ___ (2004), recommended proposed We correctly authored concludes holding, (SRA) making invalidated allow operate manner congressional intent. I. Respondent charged possession distribute cocaine (crack). Having duffel bag, violating 21 §841(a)(1). prescribes minimum prison life offense. §841(b)(1)(A)(iii). 19 Based criminal quantity drugs select "base" less 210 nor 262 Manual §§2D1.1(c)(4), 4A1.1 (Nov. 2003) (hereinafter USSG). however, post-trial proceeding obstructing justice. Those imprisonment; low end doubt, received 20 Over dissent Easterbrook, 490 (2000), 510 (2004). Id., (slip op., 7). Amendment, remanded instructions conspiracy possess 500 §§846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). He convicted answered "Yes" "Was amount grams?" App. C Pet. Cert. p. 15a. fact, imprisonment months. 22 A few days conducted that, 188-to-235 month Specifically, responsible 2.5 kilograms powder, 261.6 been organizer, leader, manager, supervisor activity. Both enhanced categorical pp. 6a-7a, "which involve role enhancement," id., 11a. Expressly refusing "any blanket about guidelines," followed imposing "based case." Ibid. 23 Following denial motion correct Circuit, writ judgment. importance questions presented, we granted petition, well similar petitions, asks us determine line so, effect.3 24 explain why agree lower courts' answer first question. Court, explains second II. 25 settled throughout protects "against conviction proof doubt necessary constitute charged." re Winship, 397 358, 364 (1970). equally "Constitution gives right demand find Gaudin, 515 506, 511 (1995). These precepts, firmly rooted provided recent interpreting modern procedures. 26 227, 230 (1999), carjacking three depending extent harm victim: jail serious injury victim, "serious bodily injury," death resulted. §2119 (1988 ed., Supp. V). spite "at glance look suggesting [that relating victim] provisions," 232, victim element text influenced desire issues implicated contrary reduced "to relative low-level gatekeeping." 244. Foreshadowing today, noted "rule raise ceiling" state systems. 251, n. 11. 27 466 pleaded second-degree firearm unlawful purpose, carried term 5-to-10 years. Thereafter, Jersey's "hate crime" law racially motivated, 12-year aside held: "Other 490. Jersey hate "sentence enhancement" act irrelevant purposes. 478. matter simple justice, seemed obvious procedural safeguards designed statute. Merely using label describe latter principled treating crimes differently. 476. 29 584 (2002), reaffirmed characterization There, impermissible sitting alone" presence absence Arizona imposition penalty. 588-589. "If State increase defendant's contingent how labels 602. Our ultimately, error Ring's might harmless implicit verdict, 609, 7, `element' `sentencing factor' determinative `who decides,' 605. 30 dealt There kidnaping, class B felony punishable comparable "standard" 49-to-53 months, unless exceptional Although prosecutor acted " `deliberate cruelty' sentenced 90 3). 31 reasons explained Jones, Apprendi, Ring, clear. Washington's existence `any fact' essential punishment. 5). whenever seeks "facts 7) (emphasis deleted). argument general 10-year Class felonies, noting 90-month precedents, explained, original). deliberate cruelty, like racial malice, increased otherwise received. Since standard, rights. 32 significance procedures (opinion J.) 12) ("The structure likewise not, half-heartedly suggests, grounds distinction. If anything, structural differences do exist vulnerable attack"). 33 recommended, required, doubted exercise broad discretion 481; Williams York, 337 241, 246 (1949). Indeed, everyone agrees avoided entirely omitted SRA judges; possible. exercises specific defined deems relevant. 34 advisory; judges.4 While subsection §3553 statute5 lists one factor sentence, 361, 391 (1989); Stinson 36, 42 (1993). 35 specified issue, itself. exists described." §3553(b)(1) (Supp. 2004). glance, believe ability depart means she maximum. Importantly, available most. cases, reason although allowed `substantial compelling reasons,' exception himself. reversed invoked section justify 36 §841(b)(1)(A)(iii) bag. level 32, which, given category, USSG §2D1.1(c)(4). run-of-the-mill inadequately 37 jury: namely, addition quantity, 9). pursuant 38 dissent, post, 2-4, argues historical across board. points traditional unusual blameworthiness employed committing crime, require exercised system. tradition, sound guide enforcement Amendment's guarantee world. 39 quite once fallen favor, American commonly determined choice heavier defendants acted. 481. 1986, own recognized trend legislative regulation selected legislatures authorized, mandated, imposed, McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79, 87-88 (1986). Provisions enhancements permissible growing wholly justified concern proliferation variety frequent identification firearms offences. 40 increasing emphasis judge's power became upper limits preponderance. 41 greater, significant. And very indeed. 330 (judge's years); (from sentence); 235 months); Rodriguez, 73 161, 162-163 (CA7 1996) (Posner, rehearing en banc) approximately 54 Hammoud, 381 316, 361-362 (CA4 2004) (en (Motz, dissenting) (actual 57 155 years). thus taking tradition invokes, faced preserving ancient circumstances. forced address preserved, meaningful way guaranteeing stand individual government regime. circumstances, superseded, led developed subsequent culminating one. motivated formalism, substance. III. 43 advances support submission contends distinguishable commission Legislature; stare decisis four earlier arguably inconsistent Blakely; conflict 44 361 (1989). vs. Legislature: 45 lacks significance. defendants' Jones. concerned, face Regardless Framers thought too much depriving man [ten] liberty, suffer modest inconvenience submitting accusation `the unanimous suffrage twelve equals neighbours,' lone employee State." 18) (citations omitted). 46 notes referred .' Brief (quoting States)). answer, course, case; expressly declined 497, 21. appropriate rule terms "statutory maximum" answering properly us. 47 More used sought vindicate. unquestionably They product innovations jurisprudence, genesis ideals assimilated law. 244-248. understood threat "judicial despotism" arise "arbitrary punishments arbitrary convictions" benefit Federalist 83, 499 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Founders presumably England, enshrined Magna Carta. Apprendi: 48 "[T]he foundation recognition extends down centuries `[T]o guard against spirit oppression tyranny part rulers,' `as great bulwark [our] civil liberties,' truth accusation, shape indictment, information, appeal, afterwards confirmed [the defendant's] neighbors 49 legal independent commission, behind applicable. Stare Decisis: next preclude disagree. Dunnigan, 507 87 (1993), enhancement determines perjury violate privilege accused testify behalf. contention invalid resulted severe authorized. Accordingly, indistinguishable Grayson, 438 (1978), pre-Guidelines upheld increase. Applying invalidate resulting verdict. Nevertheless, many situations warranted, 6-9. (Stevens, part). Dunnigan limited, overrule it. 51 Witte 389 (1995), Double Jeopardy Clause bar prosecution "We `consideration character "punishment" convicted.' Rather, `punished out warrants Watts, 519 148, (1997) (per curiam) omitted) Witte, 415, 401, 403). permitted acquitted neither Watts exceeded confront today simply presented.6 52 Edwards 523 (1998), involvement drugs. Even indictment embraced both, authority. claims merit argue crack-related activities activities. But argument, record showed "a series interrelated transactions crack," claim succeed.7 515. 53 None decision. compel limit Separation Powers: lesser extent, Breyer's code defining offenses. result, according Government, unconstitutional grant inherently define elements. 55 Commission's identify impact precisely Mistretta, 371, upholding validity delegation authority, unaffected proceedings. Jones: 56 "Contrary dissent's suggestion, proposition drives `call[s] principle definition entrusted legislature.' guarantees restrict wish characterize whose establishment liability. figure analysis identity liability punishment; going formality notice, factfinder, burden proof." 243, 6. call aspect premised understanding performing substantive decisions. 393. promulgation Judicial Branch, creation Rules Evidence, non-adjudicatory 387. delegate Branch nonadjudicatory functions trench prerogatives another central mission Judiciary." Evidence delegated nonetheless powers. 58 exercising sort power, Article members explained: 59 `practical consequences' locating undermining integrity expanding Judiciary bounds uniting quasi-legislative courts... . [The Commission's] united meaning separation-of-powers analysis. Whatever problems vested court, controlled accountable Branch." 60 always agency policy-making Congress. Nothing IV. 61 All foregoing recognize, impair expedient efficient defendants. interest fairness reliability protected common-law enjoyed now outweighed trials swiftly. 17). Blackstone put it: 62 "[H]owever convenient [new methods trial] appear (as doubtless powers, executed, convenient) let again remembered, delays, little inconveniences forms price free nations pay liberty substantial matters; inroads sacred nation fundamentally opposite constitution; begun trifles, precedent gradually spread, utter disuse juries momentous concerns." Commentaries Laws England 343-344 (1769). 63 reaffirm Any (other conviction) exceeding 64 part.8 65 following: 66 "Whether 67 answers affirmative. holds mentioned, juries, sentencing. ante, 1-2, Court). 68 here turn remedy. "as severability analysis," whole" "inapplicable conviction." 69 remedy 2004), conclude excised, section, §3742(e) (main nature. 1984, amended, §3551 seq., §991 advisory. §3553(a)(4) permits well, §3553(a) 70 Minnesota Mille Lacs Band Chippewa Indians, 172, 191 (1999); 684 (1987); 653 (1984) (plurality opinion). 767 (1996) opinion) ("Would passed" "had known" invalidity statute? (internal quotation marks omitted)). instance, following legislature's 71 One approach, existing requirement. change (or admit). 72 adopt, (through provisions) maintaining strong connection offender's uniformity achieve. alter designed. underpin wrote §§3553(a) 3661 Hence deviate radically superimposing announced through elimination 74 say kind Post, 21-22 dissenting). recognize sometimes (questions how, whether, intend apply) can legislatively unforeseen problem modification number instances. Compare, Welsh 398 333, (1970) (Harlan, concurring result) (explaining defective failure extend group benefit, "either declare nullity" "extend" who aggrieved exclusion"); Heckler Mathews, 465 728, 739, ("Although ordinarily `extension, nullification, proper course,' `use circumvent legislature Califano Westcott, 443 76, 89 (1979) id. 94 (Powell, part) (citation omitted))); Sloan Lemon, 413 825, 834 (1973) (striking Pennsylvania tuition reimbursement eliminate applications "would program actually adopted"). 9, (Thomas, ("[S]everability questions" "arise applications" statutes, "is squarely presented" here); Vermeule, Saving Constructions, 85 Geo. 1945, 1950, (1997). 75 highly provisions, creates fundamental assume key applications, instances Neither mechanically. approach grammatically, say, words linguistically compatible. 76 Nor numbers answer. is, show decisionmaking minority Prosecutors defense attorneys resolve lion's share bargaining, takes ibid. Many calling adjustment. 5. remainder, room single points, overlap highest. 8-9. 77 affect go content negotiations. Thus counting proceedings, evaluating minds can, do, differ outcome, II, infra, incompatibility. III, excision. IV, possibilities. essence, follows, namely compare added (the dissenters' remedy) latter. then 79 convince created states context, further provision, removing evidentiary limitations, §3661 (ruling "limitation [offender's] background, character, conduct" receive"). confirms Rep. 98-225, (1983) "will making" decisions) added); (before offense"); ("the comprehensive examination offender"). 80 tied parcel single, unified whole 81 reading meant Unlike interpret save constitutionality, dissenting), reinterpretation, arises, "plainly Congress." X-Citement Video, 513 64, (1994). Without along inextricably connected invalid, fall enact. newly passed "identical statute" (dissenting Such new, identically worded (unlike statute) (without disregarding intent) being Compare 13-14 82 diminishes underlies particularly as, example, "obstruct[ing], delay[ing], affect[ing] commerce movement article commodity commerce, extortion," §1951(a), or, mail "for purpose executing" "scheme artifice defraud," §1341 (2000 II), encompass vast kinds conduct. crimes, robbery, meets host ways. looked prepared officer, (often trial) 83 continue. specifically inserted cited above, (recodifying law) says 84 "[n]o limitation shall placed person receive sentence." §3661. assumed 148 curiam), rely unproved (beyond doubt). 157; 152-153 §1B1.3, comment., backg'd 1995) (USSG), "describes sweeping determining guideline range," `[c]onduct formally enter range' "). 86 2003). why, among things, reject plea-bargained determines, §6B1.2(a). prevent doing would, compared weaken tie undermine aim ensuring 88 examples help illustrate Imagine Smith whom violates Hobbs §1951(a) (forbidding extortion"). threatens injure co-worker dollars interstate company's till; similarly threatening co-worker, causes seeking money, certain co-worker's family aware threat, arranging deliveries dead animals home serious, forth. offenders' behavior different; known harmful actions before, after, different. But, prosecutors charge punishments. 2-3 (Scalia, Now imagine former felons, Johnson Jackson, engages identical behavior: bank teller gun, securing $50,000, injuring innocent bystander fleeing bank. Suppose (say, illegal gun possession, §922(g)) Jackson §2113(a)). able (within limits) offenders charges brought them. themselves similarly. system, Consider, too, fraud uncertain indicted played over financial records, becomes easier leaders followers, interviews seen worth time. relation occurred considerably distant patched routinely obtained 91 point critically important. passing move direction uniformity. §991(b)(1)(B); §994(f). consist violations approach. consists, importantly, relationships helped advance undermine. (conceding "undoubtedly `real conduct' cases," minimizing circumstance). weakening real-conduct/uniformity-in-sentencing relationship, "inexplicabl[e]" "manner achieving uniform sentences," leads dissenters envisage. 92 intended. How counsel work involved robbed how? Would allege, firearm, brandished discharged threatened death, caused injury, ordinary, permanent threatening, abducted physically restrained anyone, unusually vulnerable, money taken, robbery gang? §§2B3.1, 3B1.1. mount try simultaneously scene crime? allege vulnerability, each? expect definitions of, "relevant conduct," includes "all acts omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, willfully defendant; [in conspiracy] reasonably foreseeable others furtherance jointly undertaken activity"? §§1B1.3(a)(1)(A)-(B). measure "loss" securities instruct "only estimate"? §2B1.1, 3(C). purposes, contemptuous indictment? §3C1.1. 93 worse. major achieve i.e., likelihood engage sentences. trial-based process positive sentences, shadow (i.e., eye towards hypothetical of) potential That, realities promulgate assist agreement giving opportunity challenge report). §994(a)(2)(E); worked perfectly; accepted agreed-upon direction, toward 95 backwards tried deprive post-verdict-acquired real-conduct information; prohibit basing chose charge; strategic choices prosecutorial contest. emerge completely, accurately, pre-Guidelines, 96 inevitably reflects estimates happen trial, wrong direction. weight, skill counsel, policies prosecutor, Compared necessarily diminished, increased, 7-8 tend defeat, further, goal. 97 troubling power. Until now, come report. negotiation entirely. judges: decide, offender, 98 grams, 658.5 "566 grams" control charge. choose 92.5, less. who, charging decision, potentially insist engaged amounts full 10. react differently, patched-on bargaining. 99 downward. several Senators amicus brief, conceive establish adjusting base-offense down, up, one-way lever grossly odds Congress's intent." Senator Amici Curiae 22. Yet asymmetry stating belief unlikely minimal effect"). 100 written. 101 sever excise nevertheless invalidated. Most (describing probation, fine, imprisonment); §3552 (presentence reports); §3554 (forfeiture); §3555 (notification victims); §3583 (supervised release). "refrain invalidating necessary." 652. 652-653, 102 indicates provisions: (in including (see Appendix, provisions). remainder requirements. 103 recognizes condition violation. impose[s] judges" Apprendi's Ante, Court); ("[E]veryone [Sentencing Act] judges"). Cf. 2-8 104 "function[s] independently." 684. "mandatory" goals. disparities, restitution (3), (5)-(7) educational vocational care. §3553(a)(2) §3553(a)). 105 discretionary §3742(a) ed.) (appeal defendant); §3742(b) Government). concede different, appeals-related appeal. contains (now-excised) reasons. 106 handling appeals. held, explicitly implicitly. 558-560 (1988) (adopting "neither prescription tradition" existed, considerations); Cooter & Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 403-405 (1990) (same); Koon 81, (citing approval). infer Pierce, instance factors, already courts: 107 2003, standard. text, inserting §3553(b)(1). Prosecutorial Remedies Tools Exploitation Children Today Pub. 108-21, §401(d)(1), 117 Stat. 670. revisions ceased pre-2003 directed correctness, fell "outside Guideline view 108 unreasonable, having regard chapter 227 title; stated 3553(c)." added). 109 words, told unreasonable" 3553(a) effect, numerous courts, past, unreasonable. 110 Taking implying during last decades. Scalia believes "Wonderland" §3742(e). characterization. appropriateness inference fair linguistically, refuse retreat raises discussed supra do), entirely, cut loose moorings purpose. 111 doubts practicality "reasonableness" "Reasonableness" foreign ed.), Guideline, §§3742(a)(4), (b)(4), (e)(4). Together, 16.7% 2002 Sourcebook Statistics 1, (at 711 5,018 departures), 126 revocation supervised also, White Face, 383 733, 737-740 (CA8 2004); Tsosie, 376 1210, 1218-1219 (CA10 Salinas, 365 582, 588-590 Cook, 291 1297, 1300-1302 (CA11 2002); Olabanji, 268 636, 637-639 (CA9 2001); Ramirez-Rivera, 241 37, 40-41 (CA1 2001). think Scalia's "gross exaggeratio[n]," opinion)), familiarity prove facing equanimity calls "daunting prospect," applying 112 produce discordant symphony" "excessive disparities," "wreak havoc" continue collect study decisionmaking. modify learns, encouraging finds better practices. process. §994 113 Regardless, fears "discordant symphony," "havoc" (if exaggerations") comparative eye. originally secure. correspond (expressing regarding §3742(f) §3742(e)). clear, open choice. ask §3553(b)(1)) alternative adheres closely original objective: retention appeals, provisions? former, providing iron differences; not. differently expected. said, recommend, practicality. 11-12. 114 initial "provide certainty meeting [while] avoiding warranted." §1A1.1, note "honesty," "uniformity," "proportionality" (emphases deleted)). remaining excision, lacking features enacted, retains objectives. 115 writing collecting decisions, undertaking research, revising accordingly. §§3553(a)(4), (5) (claiming "he passed"). helping excessive individualize §991(b). feature tends hinder, engrafts unchanged objectives, counterproductive? 116 form 21-26 repeat, open. examined depth judge-based view, (§§3553(b)(1) 3742(e)) Ours, word: ball lies court. Legislature equipped devise install, long-term, Constitution, best 118 briefly fully adopted parties advanced. "in contemplated implementing become inapplicable." 44. "system inapplicable sentence-enhancing 66-67. intact. Amicus 15, (A "decision 3553(b) jeopardize reforms §3553(a)"); (recognizing independently); 29, 30. 119 understand coincides own. (asserting party adopt); (same). render prohibits" factfinding. apparently leave 120 suggestion. thing, proposal Guidelines-type reduce "one-way lever[s]" 22; 10-11. another, non-mandatory others, administrative complexities two-system seems objective promoting 121 respondents essence Stevens. accept given. supra. 122 suggestion reason. V. 123 resentencing. affirm remand, 124 Nonetheless, vacate proceedings 125 holdings 328 (1987) ("[A] prosecutions retroactively pending final, constitutes `clear break' past"). Reynoldsville Casket Co. Hyde, 514 749, 752 (1995) (civil case); Harper Virginia Dept. Taxation, 509 86, (1993) ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION 127 provides: 128 "Factors sufficient, necessary, comply paragraph subsection. 129 "(1) 130 "(2) 131 "(A) offense; 132 "(B) deterrence conduct; 133 "(C) public 134 "(D) training, correctional treatment effective manner; 135 "(3) available; 136 "(4) 137 138 "(i) issued 994(a)(1) title 28, Code, amendments (regardless incorporated 994(p) 28); 139 "(ii) 3742(g), date sentenced; 140 release, 994(a)(3) 141 "(5) statement 142 994(a)(2) 143 sentenced. 144 "(6) records 145 "(7) victims offense." 146 "Application general. Except (2), (a)(4) described. consideration, guidelines, official commentary guideline, due (a)(2). petty relationship offenses offenders, Commission." 147 "Consideration. Upon record, 149 law; 150 incorrect guidelines; 151 152 3553(c); 153 departs 154 3553(a)(2); 3553(b); 156 "(iii) 157 unreasonable degree 158 plainly 159 "The credibility witnesses, clearly erroneous determinations (3)(A) (3)(B), deference court's facts. facts." 160 Souter joins, joins 17, 161 infirmity inherent authorizes unconstitutional. respondents, suggested represents decisively ample repeal desires, I respectfully extraordinary 162 explaining creative remedy, unpersuasive, abundantly readily months' imprisonment. His determinations: (cocaine base); grams; obstructed justice; (4) evaluation record. finding, §2D1.1(c)(4) (USSG). 163 gram anywhere 324 405 equivalent nearly history. §2D1.1(c)(2). appraisal obstruction produced Constitution. virtue combining ranges latitude 164 principal chosen assumption contemplate exponentially receive. am sure correct, volunteering systemwide enact elected to. 165 When pauses 95% terminated bargain, half enhancements, overbreadth unprecedented manifest. moreover, unique reasoning, re-enact exact invalidate, reenactment constitutional. my judgment, legislative, judicial, 166 premise Acts presumptively 652 (1984). "A ruling unconstitutionality frustrates representatives people." coordinate branches duly plain showing bounds." Morrison, 529 598, 607 (2000); El Paso Northeastern Gutierrez, 215 87, (1909). traditionally controversy redress violations. 167 narrow exceptions rule. facial succeed applications. certainly involves invalid. supports majority's minted Facial Invalidity: 168 defines succeed,9 portion suggests otherwise. conceded oral 45% enhancements. 39-40 Sourcebook).10 And, Commissioners testified shortly handed rights smaller. Hearings Future Senate Committee Judiciary, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., (2004) Blakely) (testimony Steer Hon. William Sessions III) Blakely"), http://www.ussc.gov/hearings/BlakelyTest.pdf (all Internet materials visited Jan. 2005, Clerk file). Simply stated, submissions entirety, modifications, "majority guidelines." alone, facially invalid.11 169 "destroy system," J.), reality, apprised smaller 170 axiomatic waive Patton 281 276, 312-313 (1930). "[w]hen pleads guilty, stipulates consents factfinding." 14). equal concedes, 5, tiny fraction ever Estimate ("In FY02, 97.1 percent agreements"). future, consequential prospective 171 confident complying aided alleging Department advised adopt practices enable type 841."12 Enhancing specificity indictments matter, (such prosecution). dangerous weapon organizer leader activity five participants" doubt.13 172 alleged per Parts I-III, 19-20 Court), "impermissibility 46. Instead, reference defendant. crucial easily function 173 130-to-162 calculated ch. pt. (Table). Depending relies described above two-level §2D1.1, turn, eligible 151-to-188 151-to-162 (151) bottom (162) rule, exception, constituted. Practice §6.01[B], (P. Bamberger Gottlieb eds. 4th 2003 Supp.) (noting "because overlap, theoretically chosen"). Trial considerable expertise employing overlapping unnecessary resolution disputes, §7.03[B][2], (2004 Supp.), shown distinguishing improper see, Mayfield, 386 1301 (upholding levels). interaction various fallacy 174 "we intent, requirement" imaginable J.). ignores lessons stress ill suited task drafting legislation therefore, ought presume command." Hill, 385 374, (1967). generally refused "every conceivable situation possibly legislation," Barrows 346 249, 256 (1953), delicate pronouncing imagined," Raines, 362 (1960). redrafting justification extreme 175 sum, indisputable complied said are, Severability: 176 Stern, Separability Clauses Supreme Harv. Rev. (1937) Stern). normal "unconstitutionality defeat Unless evident independently dropped left operative law." Champlin Refining Corporation Comm'n Okla., 286 210, 234 (1932) added).14 177 "severability" (1987). apply. 178 §§3553(b)(1) 3742(e). uses word "shall" mandatory. 367 judges' combined faces. 179 Rather severability, parts add others) administering compliance Usually declares inquire saved. 652; Review damage done fiat. aware, today: viewed "likely" justifies constitutionality notwithstanding, deemed novelty maneuver perhaps litigation requested orders. addition, none addressed striking solution. 180 absent paraphrase Chief Marshall, "act legislature" "repugnant constitution" void. Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, (1803). unconstitutional, void, valid: pass tomorrow administered Amendment.15 itself repugnant comport 181 scant unconstitutionally extended class; excluded class.16 Given ordained assertions ex ante struck engaging expands, limits, 182 extending cover situation. complies wished amend vision operate, so. novel questionable method applied. 183 wholesale rewriting SRA, discussed, implemented difficulty 6-10. 184 appears instituted overwhelming future infirmity. detailed guidance stage final agreements." 1-2.17 experience, dramatically overstates 185 work. referring arguing impermissible. factfinding, hand, cease restrain other, 186 textual "court" plausible pure construction avoidance. Ordinarily, `where susceptible constructions, grave doubtful avoided, duty latter.' 239 (1999) rel. Delaware Hudson Co., 213 366, 408 (1909)). principle, "has debate," Edward DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Building Constr. Trades Council, 485 568, 575 (1988), presuming "legislates limitations," Rust Sullivan, 173, (1991). 187 reverses presumption. interprets phrase consider" mean: constrained (interpreting jury' unnecessary. assuming "judge, judge," verdicts leaves ultimate exclusively hands Congress.18 188 adopting constrictive "court," manufactured broader chosen. pause, miserly results "constitutional infirmities." 189 "real difficult. §6A1.1 selecting course waives bifurcated 190 undoubtedly core Apprendi. complete surprise Congress: House Report offense" difficulties. 98-1017, nothing objection itself, ensure account. §3553(a), indication inquiry discourage altogether. 192 complex. small 5-7, determinations, juries. blind prosecutions, 7-10 assisted attorneys, devised envision trusted areas imaginable, efficiency primary concern. 17-18). 193 assails reliance discount specter suffers degree. Prior strike alike bargain confidence fall. majority, eliminated expectations unlike bargains, uncertainty regime infect universe pleas occur 97% prosecutions. 194 judges," "charge" fact. factually false agreements §6B1.2(a), aid level, reducing supporting "beyond entirely." 195 probably correct. commentator noted, 196 "prosecutors so-called `real-offense' factors... prosecutors' control, experience otherwise; litigants won't) rule: empowers prosecutors, guidelines' authors fight tendency." Stuntz, Plea Bargaining Law's Disappearing Shadow, 2548, 2559-2560 (footnote 197 Not current power.19 surely, enhancing 198 solution reductions. guilt mandate. relatively reductions effect. 199 unpersuasive objections allowing converted Far considered, unequivocally endorses today. 200 innovative confronted assumes "decide statute." assume, "remedial legislature," part), adopted," (1973). 201 framework, "excising" alternative, invalidation, clean slate write meet overwhelmingly enacts revealed unmistakable preference deep suspicion SRA's reveals gross impropriety selected. History Sentence Efforts: 202 mid-1970's, began attendant indeterminate justice After decade decided overhaul. disparity, chiefly regime, aim. Feinberg, Reform: Wake Forest 291, 295-296 foremost reform effort alleviate perceived disparity... Quite frankly, secondary"); Revisited, Fed. Rptr. `greater fairness,' acting bipartisan fashion, respond complaints sentences" added)). Hatch, participant effort, conferred judiciary parole authorities heart disparity." Role Sentencing: Minimum Sentences, Search Certain Effective System, 185, Hatch) 203 Consequently, model introduced Congresses. example bill 1977 Kennedy McClellan, 1437, 95th 1st Sess. reported Nov. 1977) 1437), Stith Koh, Politics Legislative 223, 238 Koh). refined times 1984: Each refinements more, less, restrictive sentencing.20 204 Passage 205 debate passage predicated strikes competing versions legislation: bill, 6012, 98th whereas 668, splintered vote favor Cong. Rec. 1649 (1984); Koh 261-266. Eventually, substituted version 29730 206 (including commitment dictated "not the" Guidelines), teeth instructing explanation overturned appeal.21 carefully surely pains acceptable way. 207 accompanying floor statute: implausibly intent.22 Method Reducing Disparities: 208 notion idea championed 10-11 misreads environment passed. instructs characteristics, wanted system.23 relies, 6, "can traced directly unfettered confers (1983). findings), bit status quo most, hardly regain unconstrained 1984. 209 envisioned centerpiece remarkable entity SRA. Conference craft disparity. 93-94. favored commission. rightly wrongly, 976 (remarks Sen. Laxalt) stems [f]ederal individually collectively situated consistent, manner. begin debate, Members battle empower lost. 973 Mathias) (arguing proponents trusted. You trust you judge"). impossible sentiments prevailed approved Congressional Activity wavered attempt loosen rigidity vest options. ensuing years, adherence concept rejecting discretionary"). recently, End (PROTECT Act), 650, reinforced directing departures. admits PROTECT (admitting "have relevant"). cursory absurdity acceptable, restoration 3742(e).24 unequivocal name reduction vis-&racute;-vis (a speak), erased ignored entirety Branch's post-enactment expressions supposed operate. 211 open" essentially, advanced repeatedly 549-554 (O'Connor, dissenting); 1) 18-19) (Breyer, prophecies self fulfilling. preserved regular exaggerate expand dictate 212 policy, stark. solution, dispel True, contained persuasive weighed listed return rates (via downward departure) varied 53-55 (Table 26) (showing 76.6% Fourth 48.8% Ninth neglected protection existed enactment designated expiration prisoner parole." §4205(b) (1982 (repealed 98-473, §218(a)(5), 2027). recommendation Bureau Prisons. §4205(g) Through §§4201-4215, repealed Parole ultimately length 38. check Today, reenacts safety net. 214 arise. regulated monitored eviscerated "departure" mere range? "just punishment" "adequate outweighs Commission? §§3553(a)(2)(A)-(B) What "educational manner," §3553(a)(2)(D), stiff preferred? Regrettably, exactly hoped drastic unaided usual processes deliberation sweeping. unnecessarily sends back drawing board, "reasonableness," individuals' violated. "prudential doctrines" mitigate gratuitous change. 216 inevitable unconstitutional.25 distinguish correction, complicated 217 systematic overhaul turns head doing, runs instance. repealing No commensurate repaired." Hills Gautreaux, 425 284, 294 (1976). test, restraint heretofore overturn validly statutes. 218 dissent. 219 join Stevens's III26 separately mainly comments handiwork wrought tell? wrought) 221 North Star "judge-based system." me misguided. indeed apply, hard determine. headline describing (Act) reaffirms sentencing" standardized sentences." acknowledges disparity.27 Inexplicably, attached bureaucratically prepared, hearsay-riddled reports lose adhere old-fashioned expose 10-11, wonderfully ironic: rescue nullification discards 222 16. "consider" offense," §3553(a)(2)(A) §3553(a)(2)(B), §3553(a)(2)(C). priority mentioned governing penology, mandate perceptions drew up binding, (oddly) surviving described" §3553(c)(2), "this offense."28 came being. sure, (6) §3553(a)(2)(6) (which today) cannot, notorious unpopularity judges). logic compels recited discretion, passed, "considered" amputated requires) so.29 223 frustrating establishes comprehensible --essentially effective. clarity eliminated, surgery §3742 casual discloses enforce conformity obligation law30 obligations totality, inoperative. Like black-robed Alexander cutting Gordian knot, severs (e), make, inoperative, subsists mirabile dictu, (f), entitled "Decision disposition," tracks specifies disposition produce. deleting ingredients recipe telling cook proceed preparation portion.31 224 anything error. "[W]ell-established doctrine," "bars [appellate] discretion." Dorszynski 418 424, (1974). "[O]nce end." 431-432 cases). appropriately chary aggrandizement, treat blank courts. 1992, "limited appeals' 503 193, Notwithstanding §3742, remained off-limits appeals: court." Similarly, 1996, took review" "vest wide-ranging decisions." 97. repeated caution `[t]he development regime' `except statute.' Williams, 205). 225 Today's pretend honor unreviewable discussion begins declaration "despite )," (b)); later announces "unreasonableness," 18, conflates distinct authorizations elides 3742 appeal,32 setting (§§3742(a) (b)), ground (§3742(e)), (§3742(f)). one-size-fits-all "unreasonableness" arises departed range." §3742(f)(2); cf. Soltero-Lopez, 1993) ("[T]he [a defendant] appeal" `unreasonable' departures"). "reasonable[ness]" 201. 226 implicitly." Perhaps (contained §3742(e)), sense "implication" remnants standing? Only Wonderland. (This observes, persons organizations filing briefs side looking-glass proposed, imagined, wonderful disposition.) Unsurprisingly, implication fill gap removal explicit standard.33 "implied" however "linguistically" "fair," confession According "well established" "may internal "if balance incapable functioning supplement "redraft[ing] Treasury Employees, 454, 479, (1995); 502, (Rehnquist, Reno Civil Liberties Union, 521 844, 884-885 inferring stanch bleeding aggressive claims, "related language" "appellate decades." 19. reviewed reasonableness. unitary ed.); §§3742(f)(2)(A), (B) (prescribing dispose unreasonable"). statistics 2002, 19, board misapplication 228 (among things), "unreasonable." worst knows --and know practice. description anticipates positively Delphic: "These objectives." 229 earlier, se hence reversible) exaggerations (it "practical "already courts" "consistent decades," 19)34 changed. Bear mind evaluate reasonableness, cookie-cutter affirm; explanation, remand). daunting prospect refuge invites, merits forbids) extreme, handle workload approving virtually imposes, goes formalities, expressing disagreement anticipate symphony varying lie sanguine "no feature" avant-garde "ten[d] hinder" avoidance disparities." Justices ignoring havoc wreak country." 12). harsh assessment, temporary unavoidable uncertainty, get presenting needlessly, indefinite future. Will facto discouraging ranges? layer process? Or formality, busy things restored discretion? Time tell, 231 232 233 analysis, disagree restatement separately. Fanfan's. presumption leaving standing insofar problem, converts wrong, precedents require. litigant him, applied, normally face. want relief nonparties narrower litigants." 478 Renne Geary, 501 312, 323-324 (1991); Board Trustees Univ. N. Y. Fox, 492 469, 484-485 Brockett Spokane Arcades, 472 491, 501-504 (1985). Absent overbreadth, plaintiff Salerno, 481 745 236 presents as-applied challenge. challenges him. (Fanfan contention, uphold Guidelines.) 237 commands (a)(4)," refers (Emphasis added.) non-binding Hence, concludes, face.35 broad. focuses stemmed combination level36 Guidelines37: §1B1.3(a)(2), (for offenses) plan conviction"; §2D1.1(c)(2), 500g 1.5kg 36; §3C1.1, implicitly §1B1.1, adjustments; §1B1.11(b)(2), entirety"; §6A1.3(b) s.,38 disputed Rule 32(c)(1), Crim. P."; 32(c)(1),39 provided: "At unresolved report... controverted, allegation controverted in, affect, sentencing." 240 3553(b)(1), statement, 32(c)(1) Booker. provisions; doubt; findings, findings. concerted action Procedure pinpoint source time, scheme). unprecedented. inappropriate example: 242 3553(b)(1) proves nothing, employ "impose[s]." submit jury; proof. comfortably accommodates admissions 243 accomplishes vice. invalidates unobjectionable longstanding challenges. 244 Just face, Respondents §1B1.11(b)(2) Salerno requires. contrary, §§1B1.3(a)(2), 2D1.1(c)(2), 3C1.1, 1B1.11(b)(2) satisfy. attach effects facts; prescribe ("[d]etermine level," §1B1.1(b), "[a]pply adjustments," §1B1.1(c)), adjustments. 245 §6A1.3 32(c)(1). procedure: disputes. sentenced, P." 247 natural rule" disputes Procedure, 248 dispute jury-authorized adjustment level.40 249 Booker, previous §3553(b)(1); 1B1.1, 1B1.11(b)(2), 6A1.3(b); 250 Invalidating scheme's Fanfan. Severability doctrine grounded intends allows.41 1959-1963 Vermeule). provision. visible 684-697 (severing veto provisions).42 251 well. applications.43 acknowledged standing. Brockett, 504-507, moral nuisance reached materials, clause. Tennessee Garner, 471 (1985), police `all [an] arrest.' deadly unarmed, nondangerous suspect; then, severable fashioned narrowly, keeping severability. 252 11, part).44 acknowledge disposes saying Grace, 461 171, (concluding prohibited carrying banners sidewalks surrounding building); Edenfield Fane, 761, 763 solicitation ban certified accountants business context"); 501-503 injunction honoraria tailored applications). 253 silent it) 485-489 bother, case) arguable presented: press clarify affects 254 §§1B1.3, 6A1.3; them? severable. manifestation Salerno's application, 255 overcome. body 5-10 constitutional: admit verdict; (taking advantage ranges) range; Certainly fashions. bind 257 practices." §991(b)(1)(B) 258 circumscribed Striking enhancements) framework created. fashion affords uniformity; none. suggest, does, otherwise, 7-11, supposes overlooks discretion. Either implausible. 259 "engraft[s]" am, "by [or, applications] [challenged] section," [applications] there"; Reese, 214, (1876). By "engrafting" time authorize. 491 "engraftment" helpful judging correctness 260 Granted, "whether [as severed] 685. seem principle. defendants, others. eliminates end, possibilities thus, sense, second-best, violence regulatory 261 *** overcome conclusion. 263 Justice, join, 264 ranges. forbids determined) convicted. 265 maximum." Blakely. here. 266 (Kennedy, Harris 545, 549-550 (2002) 569-572 judgment); 523-554 555-556 264-272 Monge California, 524 721, 728-729 (1998) 86-91 (1986) 267 10) 525-528 mistake conclusions rest. reiterates `trial require' accusation.' 477) "accusation" encompasses accused. 509-510, 522-523 --facts recidivism) stolen) "right Traditionally, distinguished Almendarez-Torres 224, (1998); 389, 399 curiam); (1993); 396 Proc. 32(a). separate, post-conviction judge-run sensible obtaining moment impracticality alternatives, two-stage (guilt, sentence) Defender Services, Subcommittee Death Penalty Cases, Cases: Recommendations Concerning Cost Quality Representation 9-10 (May 1998). contest claimed 269 focus circumscribe convict law" Carta." support, they, revealing acceptance Apr. 30, 1790, 112-118. 270 we, confirming, confounding pre-Apprendi, pre-Blakely stretches century more. (1949); cf., (case below) ("Blakely redefined "); Ameline, 967, sea law"); Pineiro, 377 464, 468-469 (CA5 Penaranda, 238, (CA2 (same, 271 risk unwieldy trials, two-tier replacement 3-13) obstacle irrational discrimination discrimination) 3) perverse lens 272 upshot theirs. 544-545 560-564 peculiarly shared responsibility Branches Government." 390. joint included (by elements) specify individual-crime-related 0 years' robbery) identifying Almendarez-Torres, 228; McMillan, 85. 273 absolute. "legislatures" "establish [judge-determined] [say, process] limits." 11) original); (distinguishing "factors sentencing," "[w]ithin Congress") omitted); impression [sentencing factor] tail wags dog offense"). freedom constraints fairness) factor," innocence. job managing "fairness" constraint, overreached. nowhere asked, "compared what?" Had 11), imposes 274 consequences, Harris, 549-550, 569-572; 523-554, 555-556; 86-91. elaborate further. 275 dissuade dissuaded seq.; extension, differences. 276 administrative, statutory, Members, rules. "establis[h] penalties" "fetter[ing] generations 396; §5G1.1; "still penalty"). reflect, organize, rationalize, old judicially §994(a); editorial note, §3, 2-4 empirical approach). "prescribed maximum," added), phrase. 277 broadly purports follow, extend, 278 Apprendi-type sees "element" factor, will. temptation severely diminished "bind regulate public." 396. factors. switch all. 2-3, 7-8). 279 administratively risks confusion uncertainty. Read literally, strictures non-statutory delineating "reasonable." (Imagine unreasonably special present.) disproportionate proportionate. forth, mentioned.) Appellate "reasonable" scope. escape literal limits. efforts. 412. 280 absolute emphasized, higher-than-standard --i.e., impose, `other computing offense.' Gore, Wash. 288, 315-316, P. 262, (2001)). offer fact-related assurance. "there Commission," weapon, nerve gas). Whether departure-triggering decide. 282 conceivably 399; Comment, 339-340 assurance 283 284 Opinion Footnotes Together Fanfan, Circuit. Ginsburg are: "1. "2. `yes,' (I). (1989), pointed "mandatory-guideline system" advisory," "makes courts." 367. particular, Clause, briefing argument. unsurprising added: "Instead, petitioners cocaine-only, cocaine-and-crack, conspiracy. Appeals. `jury-found-only-cocaine' difference (given findings) leniency." Edwards, 515-516. have, occasion, debated Chicago Morales, 527 41, 54-55, opinion), 78-83 immaterial borders frivolous contend [they were] cover." Lodging Number Cases Possibly Impacted Decision, Estimate). Webster Reproductive Health (1989) judgment) "some straightforward [that] constitutional"); Secretary Md. Joseph Munson 467 947, 977 ("When him... prevails, toto, case-by-case basis. meantime, interests served bounds"); (this `formulate precise applied' Ohio Akron Center Health, 497 (statutes "on worst-case occur"). Memorandum General, Division, Prosecutors, re: Guidance Regarding Pending 8, http://sentencing. typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/chris_wray_doj_memo.pdf Blakely); 9-12. commentators Stern 82. enumerated sustain situations, limited. (1876) (invalidating punished individuals interfered vote, Fifteenth prohibition); Trade-Mark 82, (1879) trade-mark registration" Commerce Clause); Abby Dodge, 166, (1912) (construing waters jurisdiction valid); NLRB Laughlin Steel 301 30-31 (holding Labor Relations basis). avoidance, 285 sufficiently integral warrant intuitive Thomas' event, prefer extension warranted. predicate realized repudiate premise. professed Surely clarifying 15-17, 825 (1973), reimbursing parents paid private schools ran afoul Establishment students secular schools. 361-363 (1970), Harlan, conscientious objectors exempt military service views religiously Clause. deny objectors, large clause" 365. (1984), benefits, nullifying benefits stands opine some, all, went "[e]ven choppy be. viability [Guidelines] called [Apprendi (2000)]. period circuit intact." 1. successful adaptation indictments. 7-8. factfinding" admits. condemned them, assertion, Gilbert, Guidelines: Results Center's 1996 Survey 7-9 officers, widespread "frustration guidelines" "guidelines manipulated agreements"); Saris, Have Eliminated Disparity? Judge's Perspective, Suffolk 1027, 1030 (1997); Nagel Schulhofer, Tale Three Cities: An Empirical Study Charging Practices Cal. 501, 560 (1992) disparities). Incidentally, 1437 subjected "clearly §101 (proposed §§2003(a), 3725(e)). twice directive `clearly unreasonable' `unreasonable.' (detailing passage). countless opportunities seven rejection powerful 269-270; Wilkins, Newton, Steer, Competing Policies "War Drugs" Era, 305, 313 33109 restore predictability Adherence rare ..."); 33110 Biden) ("That to, second-guess wisdom act's articulated §3553(b). levels punishment"); 98-223, "resisted [the] voluntary poor Academy Science experimented `voluntary' guidelines"); 34-35 "urgent for" "directly [by] [sentencing] sentence"); 36-43, (cataloging "astounding" variations criticizing unfairness cites considers 1970, 91-452, §1001(a), 951, whatsoever Clearly, reason, goals minor system: "While thick-as-your-wrist thousands discrete 256-box grid Osler, Uniformity Traditional Goals Age Feeney, 253, 253-254 committee debates belie adopt. S5113, S5121-S5122 (Apr. 10, "says game those, happening society children's softhearted are. trying bill: sick this, anymore Commission"); S5123 ("[T]rial systematically sentences"); S6708, S6711 20, Kennedy) Feeney strips transforms ways downwards guidelines"). minimized limiting suffered 314 (1987), rather, review." 323. assertion 25. resort individuals, interpretations "One examining did." Services Velazquez, 531 533, (2001) "increased sentencing"); (referring "diminish[ing] disparity" "Congress' goal"); ("Congress Fifteen Years xvi ("Sentencing greatest controlling arising targeted discretion"); succeeded principally do: "significantly practice" "most frequently 47. closest dares crafted 21-22. represent 20. True enough, "better" authoritative, Paragraph (e)(1) "was Courts this. immense captious (f) §3742(f)(1) "departure §3742(f)(2). (f)(1) "remand proceedings" incomprehensible instruction when, respectively, "imposed law," §§3742(a)(1), (b)(1), (e)(1), §§3742(a)(2), (b)(2), (e)(2), (f)(1); §§3742(a)(3), (b)(3), (e)(3), (f)(2); unreasonable," (e)(4), (f)(2). (1990), (1996). Deciding "unreasonable" required), covered surrounded analogous §3742(e)(4) differs toto caelo driven §3742(e)(2) (directing factors). explain) needless (supported found) 32. (USSG) (setting sell 32). November 2003. §6A1.3, 42-43 200-201 (1992). replaced 32(i)(3). provides, substantially "must 32(i)(3)(B) (2003). resolving corrects mistaken belief. Fifth deciding, nebulous regulations Flores, 292, 300-301 §454 ("If thereof circumstance, affected thereby" added)); §806(b) (similar); §102 II) §136x §79z-6 §114 §901 "[i]f severable"); Vermeule ("There misconception subsections sections, clauses (but all) unconstitutional"); 78-79 ("One [type question] relates invalid"). distorts 12-14 fix 2-6, 15-16 Normally, (not doctrine), (under principles) skips step, precursor

Classification Label: 0