FAMM files amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court federal sentencing guidelines case
On July 26, FAMM filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, the latest in a series of cases that outline to what extent judges must adhere to the federal sentencing guidelines. FAMM is grateful to Gregory Poe, of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner in Washington, D.C. and Brian M. Willen, of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, in New York, for representing FAMM in Gall. Click here to download the Gall amicus brief.
Gall asks the Supreme Court to decide "[w]hether, when determining the “reasonableness” of a district court sentence under United States v. Booker, it is appropriate to require district courts to justify a sentence outside the range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines with a finding of extraordinary circumstances.”
FAMM's amicus brief in Gall advises the Court to say "no." We explain that the so-called "parsimony mandate" in the federal statute requires that federal sentencing be guided by reasoned judgment, individualized consideration, and deferential appellate review. This means that sentencing judges must fashion a sentence that is "sufficient but not greater than necessary" to meet the purposes of sentencing and take into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the characteristics of the defendant, and the sentencing guidelines.
FAMM's brief argues that the guidelines are now but one of the list of considerations that should be considered by courts arriving at the sentences and giving the guidelines special weight as presumptively reasonable violates the parsimony mandate in the federal sentencing statute. Appeals courts, FAMM advises, should exercise traditional deference to a district court’s exercise of discretion at sentencing and reverse a sentence only when the sentencing judge has abused his or her discretion.
Gall is the latest in a series of cases that outline to what extent judges must adhere to the federal sentencing guidelines. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court transformed the federal sentencing guidelines from mandatory to advisory as a way of curing a defect that rendered the guidelines unconstitutional. The Court directed that sentences meted out under the newly advisory guidelines should be reviewed, if challenged, by the federal Courts of Appeals to determine whether they are "reasonable." In response, a number of appeals courts gravitated back to the guidelines. They affirmed as "reasonable" within-guideline range sentences, but vacated as "not reasonable" sentences that fell below the guideline range. Click here for Booker resources.
Earlier this year in United States v. Rita, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), the Supreme Court addressed whether a within-guideline sentence could be "presumed reasonable" and determined that it could. The question of how or whether the presumption applies to sentences below the guideline range was not decided because the petitioner in the case, Claiborne v. United States, died while it was pending and his case was dismissed. The Court promptly agreed to replace the Claiborne case with Gall. Click here for Rita/Claiborne resources.
The Gall case will be heard this fall. FAMM will keep you updated on developments in this case through our website and newsletter.