HOT TOPICS

• Crack Cocaine Guideline Amendments
• Sentencing Resource Page
• The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
• Supreme Court Case Summaries
• CJA Guidelines & Case Budgeting Information

For information on other topics, go to our
Training Materials & Other Publications page.

LATEST NEWS

Supreme Court Issues Latest Sentencing Guidelines Decision: Courts Are Not Required to Provide Notice of Intent to Impose a Non-Guidelines Sentence

In Irizarry v. United States (No. 06-7517) the Court held that the notice requirement of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) does not extend to a "variance" from the recommended guidelines range. According to the Court, "The due process concerns that motivated the Court to require notice in a world of mandatory Guidelines no longer provide a basis for this Court to extend the rule set forth in [Burns v. United States, 501 U. S. 129 (1991)], either through an interpretation of Rule 32(h) itself or through Rule 32(i)(1)(C)." Click here for text of the opinion, briefs, and other documents related to the case.

Supreme Court Holds That State Recidivism Statutes Can Trigger ACCA’s Sentencing Enhancements

In United States v. Rodriquez, No. 06-1646, the Court held that a state controlled substance offense punishable by five years imprisonment is a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) because the defendant was subject to a recidivist enhancement statute that established a ten-year statutory maximum. The opinion and other documents related to the case are available here.

Rodriquez is one of three cases decided this term in which the Court has addressed sentencing enhancement statutes. In Begay v. United States, No. 06-11543, the Court held that felony DUI under New Mexico law is not a violent felony under the residual clause of ACCA, 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Click here for text of the opinion and briefs. In Burgess v. United States, No. 06-11429, the Court ruled that a drug crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison is a “felony drug offense” even if state law classifies it as a misdemeanor. Click here for text of the opinion.

One additional ACCA case is currently pending in the Supreme Court. In Chambers v. United States, the Court will address whether a prior conviction for escape, when it is based upon a failure to report for confinement, is a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The cert petition is available here.

For commentary on other criminal cases decided in the Supreme Court this term, click here.

Sentencing Commission Corrects the Mathematical Problem Created by the New Crack-to-Marijuana Equivalency Table (Effective Date: May 1, 2008)

When the USSC amended the crack cocaine guideline to reduce the base offense levels, it created a new separate table in the commentary to USSG § 2D1.1, at Note 10(D), for converting crack to an “equivalent” quantity of marijuana in cases involving crack and at least one other drug. The table produced false equivalencies that, in some cases, resulted in a base offense level no different than the pre-amendment level. In order to correct these anomalies, on April 16, 2008, the Commission voted to amend the commentary to USSG § 2D1.1, and also voted to amend §1B1.10, to provide retroactive effect to the amended commentary. Click here for text of the amendments.

The amendment to §2D1.1's commentary changes the drug equivalency table to provide (as it did prior to Amendment 706) that 1 gram of crack cocaine is equal to 20 kilograms of marijuana, and then calls for a two-level decrease in the resulting offense level. Practitioners should note that this amendment does not resolve the within-range anomalies and the differing ratios between crack and powder cocaine in the drug quantity table. Click here for more on the mathematical anomalies.

Sentencing Commission Proposes Amendments to Disaster Fraud, Immigration, and Several Other Guideline Provisions (Effective Date: November 1, 2008)

The Commission has promulgated amendments that will take effect November 1, 2008, assuming congressional approval. They include amendments to USSG §2B1.1 (specifically regarding disaster fraud), §2L1.2 (illegal reentry), §2E3.1 (animal fighting offenses), §2A6.1 (threatening or harassing communications; hoaxes; liens), §2H3.1 (disclosure of certain private or protected information), and others. Practitioners should be aware of these upcoming changes, know which changes will be a detriment to their clients, and begin asserting beneficial provisions on behalf of their clients now. Click here for a more in-depth discussion of these proposed amendments.