Court Opinion

ID: 9479832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:30:15.953978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:18.639961
License: Public Domain

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s result and most of its reasoning. I see no reason, however, to inquire in this case into the legislative history of the Sentencing Guidelines. As the Court points out, ante at page 693, Tharp’s offense — a conspiracy that straddled the effective date of the Guidelines — was not completed, and therefore did not exist, until after the Guidelines had become effective. It follows that the offense was not “committed” until after the effective date of the Guidelines and that it plainly is subject to sentencing under the Guidelines.
I totally agree with the Court’s observation, ante at page 693, that we would reach the same conclusion without resort to the legislative history. Because the meaning of the controlling statute as applied to this case is plain, there is simply no reason to explore its legislative history, and I would eschew doing so.