Petition for Certiorari Challenging Presumptively Reasonable Guidelines

Solicitor General's Response

Petitioner's Reply

Sample Brief (on appeal by the government, arguing that district court properly took into account disparities between fast track and non-fast track jurisdictions).
Date: March 2006

Sample Post-Booker Sentencing Memorandum (highlighting defendant's good character and cooperation with the government)

Sample Brief Reasonableness of sentence at bottom of advisory guidelines range. Date: August 2005

Illegal Reentry Sentencing Memo Arguing the 3553 factors and for less than advisory guideline sentencing range for lack of Fast Track in district. (Attachment #5 is Fed. Def. Sent. Comm. memo 11/04 concerning Fast Track, can be obtained from Training Branch (202) 502-2900. Date: June 2005 re-entry cases) Date: June 2005

Sentencing Memo (arguing for sentence below advisory sentencing guideline range in part because of lack of Fast Track procedure in district in illegal re-entry cases) Date: June 2005

Brief arguing that Apprendi, Blakely and Booker limit the maximum term of imprisonment for a reimposed supervised release term upon revocation to the maximum term of supervised release (minus time served for the revocation) permitted by statute as established by the statutory class of the underlying felony's "maximum sentence" (the high end of Guideline sentencing range for what admitted or found by jury). Date: April 12, 2005.

Sentencing Memo, Arguing 3553(a) factors, ex post facto and ratio of upward to downward departures in Chapter Two of Guidelines, i.e., 49/5. Date: May 2005

Brief, requesting full remand; one issue failure of dist. court to consider crack/powder disparity and 15 year review of Sentencing Commission. Date: May 2005

Sample, Post-Booker Sentencing Memo

Sentencing Memo Arguing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and general mitigating grounds to obtain less than advisory sentencing range. Date: March 2005

Downward departure motion based on crack/powder cocaine 100/1 ratio, relying on Nov. 2004 Sentencing Commission analysis of 15 years of Guideline sentencing and opinions post-Booker that discuss this issue. Date: March 29, 2005

PSI Restitution Objection - Blakely/Booker apply to restitution ordered under Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. Dated March 25, 2005.

Petition for Rehearing, 4th Cir. 4/11/05 (requesting reconsideration of legality of alternate sentence imposed by court along with guideline sentence pre-Booker)

Motion reviewing law of severability, and arguing for severability of portions of Guidelines and Sentencing Reform Act. Requests that the judge conduct sentencing using base offense level, departures and downward adjustments, and only the enhancements that are supported by a jury verdict on the statutory offense elements or by the defendant's admissions.

Motion using Tyler v. Cain and Schriro v. Summerlin to argue that Blakely is retroactive under Teague because it impliates fundamental fairness of proceeding and heightens accuracy and reliability of outcome. Date: July 7, 2004.

Motion in a vehicle theft case, arguing the Separation of Powers clause is violated if anything other than the statutory elements of the offense are submitted to a jury and that no sentence increase driven by a Guideline provision can be applied. Date: July 7, 2004.

Motion arguing that Guideline provisions are severable such that portions that would be unconstitutional under Blakely can be ignored while still leaving the provisions for base offense level calculations. Date: July 16, 2004.

Motion in a case under 8 USC 1326 (illegal reentry), arguing that the Guidelines are unconstitutional as a whole because base offense levesl in Chapter 2 cannot be severed from specific offense characteristics with the same chapter. Date: July 19, 2004.

Sentencing Memorandum in a case under 8 USC 1326 (illegal reentry), arguing that Guidelines are unconstitutional as a whole, and applying Blakely to criminal history and determination of a "crime of violence," challenging anew Almendarez-Torres. Date: July 12, 2004.

Motion to amend a 2255 petition, arguing that following Blakely the sentence is illegal, and that the 2255 petition should be amended because Blakely is retroactive on collateral review. Date: July 7, 2004.

Sample objection to sentencing jury (August 4, 2004).