home

Sentencing Commission to Hold Hearing on Retroactivity of Crack Guideline Amendment

On November 1, the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine will drop two levels. Not enough to make up for the outrageous disparity between crack and powder guidelines, but a good start.

The remaining question is whether the guideline change will be retroactive and apply to the 19,500 previously sentenced defendants.

The Commission will hold a public hearing on November 13 (pdf.) Sentencing Law and Policy has the details.

< Sentencing Guideline Changes Coming for Terminally Ill and Others | "Michael Clayton" Review: Yes, Go See It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How can this _not_ happen? (none / 0) (#1)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    Whenever I examine a debate, I try to see both sides of the issue.

    But, seriously, can somebody help me see both sides of the issue here?

    On one side is simple fairness.  (It'd be abusrd for inmate X to get 6 years sitting next to inmate Y who got 5 years, only because inmate Y did his crime a week later than inmate X)

    On the other side is the argument that "it'd be too much a burden on the courts to resentence everybody."

    But the latter argument seems to weak to me.  I mean, really, since when does "a burden on the courts" outweigh justice for thousands of people?  Is there a stronger argument (please, without snark, I'm really trying to understand this) against retroactivity?

    In the meantime (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 02:02:52 PM EST
     I am having my staff compile a list of all my former clients sentenced for crack and will be filing motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) (and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 ) for sentence reduction based upon the amended guideline. Once it takes effect 11/1. I'm not sure what will happen but particularly for any former clients who may be eligible for immediate or soon be eligible for release if the amendment is applied retroactively i want to get the motions on the docket. Who knows, it's possible, some district judge might decide the amendment qualifies for retoactive application under the commentary without waiting for the wheels to grind.

    partial answer to why it might not (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

      --in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

      The applicable policy statement is § 1B1.10, which currently lists the prior amendments which courts should apply retroactively 9remember it's a policy statement not a guideline and Booker was not issued when it was drafted.

      The sentencing commission did NOT add this amendment to the ones listed in § 1B1.10 (c) (the public hearing described in the post is to hear evidence and argument on whether that should be done), but i think an argument can be made that since it is just a policy statement and even the guidelines are advisory only now that a district court has authority to grant a reduction before the commission acts. Of course, saying an argument exists and saying it will happen are 2 different things. I intend to rely on this frome the commentary to §1B1.10:

    Background: Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18, United States Code, provides: "[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission."

    This policy statement provides guidance for a court when considering a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and implements 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), which provides: "If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense
    or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced."

    Among the factors considered by the Commission in selecting the amendments included in subsection (c) were the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under subsection (b).

    The listing of an amendment in subsection (c) reflects policy determinations by the Commission that a reduced guideline range is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing and that, in the sound discretion of the court, a reduction in the term of imprisonment may be appropriate for previously sentenced, qualified defendants. The authorization of such a discretionary reduction does not otherwise affect the lawfulness of a previously imposed sentence, does not authorize a reduction in any other component of the sentence, and does not entitle a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter of right.

    The Commission has not included in this policy statement amendments that generally reduce the maximum of the guideline range by less than six months. This criterion is in accord with the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) (formerly § 994(t)), which states: "It should be noted that the Committee does not expect that the Commission will recommend adjusting existing sentences under the provision when guidelines are simply refined in a way that might cause isolated instances of existing sentences falling above the old guidelines* or when there is only a minor downward adjustment in the guidelines. The Committee does not believe the courts should be burdened with adjustments in these cases." S. Rep. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 180 (1983).

    CHAPTER 1 - PART B - GENERAL APPLICATION PRINCIPLES
    §1B1.10. Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)
    (a) Where a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c) below, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not consistent with this policy statement and thus is not authorized.

    (b) In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the term of imprisonment is warranted for a defendant eligible for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the court should consider the term of imprisonment that it would have imposed had the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c) been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced, except that in no event may the reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served.

    (c) Amendments covered by this policy statement are listed in Appendix C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371, 379, 380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606, and 657.

    Commentary

    Application Notes:

    1. Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable guideline range.

    2. In determining the amended guideline range under subsection (b), the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced. All other guideline application decisions remain unaffected.

    3. Under subsection (b), the amended guideline range and the term of imprisonment already served by the defendant limit the extent to which an eligible defendant's sentence may be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). When the original sentence represented a downward departure, a comparable reduction below the amended guideline range may be appropriate; however, in no case shall the term of imprisonment be reduced below time served. Subject to these limitations, the sentencing court has the discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to reduce a term of imprisonment under this section.

    4. Only a term of imprisonment imposed as part of the original sentence is authorized to be reduced under this section. This section does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release.

    5. If the limitation in subsection (b) relating to time already served precludes a reduction in the term of imprisonment to the extent the court determines otherwise would have been appropriate as a result of the amended guideline range, the court may consider any such reduction that it was unable to grant in connection with any motion for early termination of a term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). However, the fact that a defendant may have served a longer term of imprisonment than the court determines would have been appropriate in view of the amended guideline range shall not, without more, provide a basis for early termination of supervised release. Rather, the court should take into account the totality of circumstances relevant to a decision to terminate supervised release, including the term of supervised release that would have been appropriate in connection with a sentence under the amended guideline range.

    Background:
    This policy statement provides guidance for a court when considering a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and implements 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), which provides: "If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense

    or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced."

    Among the factors considered by the Commission in selecting the amendments included in subsection (c) were the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under subsection (b).

    *

       The argument essentially is that a reduction would be consistent with the general principles even though this amendment is not now specifically mentioned-- and that because it's only a policy statement that was always advisory even before Booker made the guidelines advisory that the court should follow the general principles.  Even if the sentencing commission has no amended this section yet, the court should not consider that binding. I'm not hugely optimistic but it's worth a shot. Nothing to lose.

       This amendment despite the huge numbers of peole impacted is actually fairly easy to implement for people previously sentenced-- just subtract 2 across the board.

       I'm hopeful the commission will eventually "do the right thing" but it's not a certainty and I'm less optimistic many judges will do it without blessing "from above."