• An Introduction to Federal Sentencing (Eleventh Edition) (March 2009)
  by Henry J. Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Western District of Texas

• Sentencing By the Statute
  by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  Part I of this paper argues that defense attorneys should refocus sentencing courts on the sentencing purposes and parsimony principle of the governing sentencing statute, 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). It also offers several suggestions regarding the kinds of facts and considerations that may be relevant to each sentencing purpose. Part II discusses "consideration" of the advisory guideline range and what role, if any, sentencing purposes and empirical evidence of past practice have played in the guidelines' development. Part III discusses deconstruction of the guideline range and construction of a purpose-driven sentence. Part IV argues that the first question in every case in which prison is not statutorily required should be whether probation will suffice. Part V offers suggestions for objective, well-reasoned bases that can be used, alone or in combination, to support a non-guideline sentence of probation or a shorter prison term. Part VI provides step-by-step examples of how to construct a purpose-driven sentence in different types of cases.

• Four Steps Towards Better Advocacy: How to Approach Your Client’s Sentencing After Booker, Rita, Gall and Kimbrough (August 1, 2008)
  by Molly L. Roth, Assistant Federal Public Defender, W.D. TX
  When preparing for sentencing post-Booker, attorneys should be well-versed in all the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), have a working understanding of the federal sentencing guidelines, and be prepared to investigate mitigation facts for creative presentation to the sentencing court. This brief guide offers four steps for lawyers to take as they analyze their cases in preparation for sentencing. It also links to in-depth resources that thoroughly discuss recent Supreme Court case law, explain the history and functioning of the guidelines, and offer attorneys concrete investigation tips.
  
  
• Sentencing Appeals (2008-2009)
  by Denise Barrett and Sara Noonan, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  (This summary of selected post-Booker appellate decisions is intended to assist practitioners in setting up an appellate issue in the district court and on appeal.)
  
  
• Departures and Variances
  by David Hemingway ,Research and Writing Specialist, and Janet Hinton, Paralegal, E.D. MO.
  This document, adapted from a chapter in the upcoming Defending a Federal Criminal Case, compiles cases supporting a variety of downward departures and variances from the advisory guidelines.
  
  
• Judges Are Free to Disagree With Any Guideline, Not Just Crack, Including Guidelines That Are the Product of Congressional Directives to the Commission
  by Amy Baron-Evans, Jennifer Coffin, Sara E. Noonan, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  (This article presents arguments and supporting caselaw for the proposition that all guidelines are advisory, even if they are the product of an explicit congressional directive to the Sentencing Commission).
  
  

• After Irizarry: (1) Due Process Requires Notice and Adversarial Testing of Aggravating Facts (2) Object and Seek a Continuance if Surprised by Aggravating Facts (3) Argue that the Reason is a "Departure" (August 11, 2008)
  by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  In Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008), the Supreme 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. This article emphasizes the distinction between notice of a judge's contemplation of a variance, and notice of and opportunity for adversarial testing of aggravating facts, and argues that the latter is still required even after Irizarry.
  

• Rita, Gall and Kimbrough: A Chance for Real Sentencing Improvements (May 11, 2008)
  by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  Part I of this article gives an overview of how recent Supreme Court cases clarify that Section 3553(a) is the controlling law and the guidelines are merely advisory. Part II outlines the procedural nuts and bolts set forth by these cases, and presents arguments for improved procedural safeguards. Part III describes the as-applied Sixth Amendment challenge invited by Justice Scalia in Rita and Gall. Part IV describes the Court’s invitation to use empirical and policy critiques of the guidelines as sword and shield, and offers suggestions for how to do so.
  
  For additional discussion of the Supreme Court's post-Booker caselaw and tips for effective sentencing advocacy in light of this caselaw, see What is Lovely (and Not So Lovely) About Rita – Implications for Gall, Kimbrough and Future Cases (September 12, 2007). (To access briefs and data referenced in the Rita article, please click here .) For resources demonstrating that particular guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, do not advance sentencing purposes, and do not avoid unwarranted disparities or unwarranted similarities, see The Continuing Struggle for Just, Effective and Constitutional Sentencing After United States v. Booker (August 2006).
  
  
• Notable Cases Applying Gall and Kimbrough from December 10, 2007 to February 12, 2008
  by Jennifer Coffin, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel, Research and Writing Specialist
  This memorandum provides an outline and analysis of circuit court decisions applying Gall and Kimbrough.
  
  
• Federal Public Defender’s Office Sentencing Resource Manual: Using Statistics and Studies to Redefine the Purposes of Sentencing (last updated September 2008)
  Edited by Jennifer Coffin, Research & Writing Specialist, Federal Public Defender's Office, M.D. TN;
  Sarah Gannett, Research & Writing Specialist, Federal Public Defender's Office, D. MD; Molly Roth, Assistant Federal Public Defender, W.D. TX
  A compilation of useful resources that federal defense attorneys can consult when drafting sentencing memoranda and making oral arguments for sentences below the advisory guideline range.
  
  
• 3553(a) Allocution Pleading and The Story Behind the Allocution Pleading
  developed by Tony Lacy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, W.D. OK
  This Allocution Pleading sets forth a series of questions based on the 3553(a) factors. Practitioners can present these questions to a client before sentencing, allowing the client to put in his or her own words what facts and circumstances the court should consider in fashioning an appropriate sentence. Answering these questions for the sentencing judge encourages the client to think about the sentencing process, and it provides insight lacking in the Presentence Investigation Report.
  
  
• Preserving the Sixth Amendment Claim for Proof of Prior Convictions (February 12, 2008)
  In a number of federal prosecutions -- including immigration, firearms, and child pornography cases -- a client's sentence may be increased on the basis of prior convictions. This may violate the Sixth Amendment's jury trial and reasonable doubt requirements. In this article from the Ninth Circuit Blog, Steve Sady (Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, D. OR) argues that practitioners should continue to make and preserve the Sixth Amendment claim that the fact of a prior conviction must be found by the jury.
  
  
• Appellant's Supplemental Brief and Cert Petition Raising Sixth Amendment Challenge to the Use of Acquitted Conduct in Sentencing
  
  
• The Supreme Court, the Senators and DOJ All Agree: Judges Must Be Free to Disagree with the Sentencing Commission as a Matter of Policy in Order to Avoid a Sixth Amendment Violation (April 2007)
  by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  
  
• Sentencing Post-Booker (April 10, 2006)
  by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  
  
• Section 3553(a)(2) and the USSC's newly released reports on recidivism (January 2006)
  by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  This article explores the use of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's own recidivism studies to argue that the criminal history rules yield a longer sentence than that required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
  
  
• Supplementary Report on the Initial Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (1987)
  United States Sentencing Commission
  This publication was issued by the Commission in 1987, shortly after the first edition of the guidelines was submitted to Congress. It is a primary source for "legislative history" of the guidelines. It supplements and further explains the guidelines, policy statements and commentary, and includes the results of the Commission's "past practice study" mentioned by Justice Breyer in Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2464 (2007).
  
  
• An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories: Part I & Part II (February 4, 1994)
  (U.S. Department of Justice) (finding that a substantial number of minor role drug offenders with minimal criminal histories "are much less likely than high-level defendants to re-offend" and "a short prison sentence is just as likely to deter them from future offending as a long prison sentence.")
  
  
• Your Client Will Not Get Mental Health Treatment in Prison: A Primer on How to Back Up That Claim
  by James Tibensky, Mitigation Specialist, Federal Defender Program of Chicago
  This article sets forth data to support an argument that a client should receive a non-prison sentence based on lack of access to mental health treatment through the Bureau of Prisons.
  
  
• The Truth About Fast Track; and February 2008 DOJ Memo Reauthorizing Fast Track Programs; and March 2009 DOJ Memo Reauthorizing Fast Track Programs
  
  
• Testimony from Joint Economic Committee Hearing on Negative Impacts of Mass Incarceration
  On October 4, 2007, the joint House and Senate Economic Committee held a hearing to "examine why the United States has such a disproportionate share of the world's prison population, as well as ways to address this issue that responsibly balance public safety and the high social and economic costs of imprisonment." The testimony and data from this hearing provide valuable information that may help you create or support sentencing arguments.

Deconstructing the Guidelines is a special project undertaken by National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel. The papers in this section critically examine the history and basis of the most frequently encountered provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Judges are now invited to consider arguments that the guideline itself fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations, reflects an unsound judgment, does not treat defendant characteristics in the proper way, or that a different sentence is appropriate regardless. Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465, 2468 (2007). Judges "may vary [from Guidelines ranges] based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines," Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 570 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and when they do, the courts of appeals may not "grant greater factfinding leeway to [the Commission] than to [the] district judge." Rita , 127 S. Ct. at 2463. Whatever respect a guideline may deserve depends on whether the Commission acted in "the exercise of its characteristic institutional role." Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575. This role has two basic components: (1) reliance on empirical evidence of pre-guidelines sentencing practice, and (2) review and revision in light of judicial decisions, sentencing data, and comments from participants and experts in the field. Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2464-65. "Notably, not all of the Guidelines are tied to this empirical evidence." Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 n.2 (2007). When a guideline is not the product of "empirical data and national experience," it is not an abuse of discretion to conclude that it fails to achieve the § 3553(a)'s purposes, even in "a mine-run case." Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575.

In addition to the papers linked below, National Federal Defender Resource Counsel is working on papers deconstructing other guidelines. Look for these papers in the upcoming months. In the meantime, see The Continuing Struggle for Just, Effective and Constitutional Sentencing After United States v. Booker (August 2006) for evidence and resources supporting the argument that other guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, do not advance sentencing purposes, and do not avoid unwarranted disparities or unwarranted similarities.

• Career Offender Guidelines

• Deconstructing the Career Offender Guideline (January 4, 2010)
  by Amy Baron-Evans, Jennifer Coffin, & Sara Noonan, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
  
  
• Letter Stating the Government's Position on the Career Offender Guideline, Docketed March 17, 2008 in United States v. Funk, No. 05-3708, 3709 (6th Cir.)
  In this letter from a U.S. Attorneys' Office to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a pending case, the stated "position of the United States" is that the career offender guideline is not mandatory, and that "Kimbrough's reference to [§ 994(h)] reflected the conclusion that Congress intended the Guidelines to reflect the policy stated in Section 994(h), not that the guideline implementing that policy binds federal courts." (Emphasis in original.)



• Petition for Rehearing En Banc Filed in United States v. Funk -- Government Ordered to Respond -- DOJ Concedes Error
  Despite the government's letter (posted just above), two judges of the panel for the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the "closer review" dictum in Kimbrough to create a novel two-tiered standard of review for substantive reasonableness and to hold that a downward variance based on a district court's policy disagreement with the career offender guideline is "improper." In response to the defendant's petition for rehearing en banc, the government, now represented by the Department of Justice, conceded that the panel majority erred and that courts can disagree as a matter of policy with the career offender guideline, despite Congress's direction to the Commission at 28 USC § 994(h). Yet, DOJ insists that "closer review" is warranted, apparently in light of Congress's directive in 994(h), and that there is no merit to Mr. Funk's argument that the career offender guideline is flawed. Mr. Funk's response, a copy of which is attached here, concisely refutes DOJ's position.
  
  
  • United States v. Funk, No. 05-3708 (6th Cir., July 22, 2008)
  • Petition for Rehearing En Banc
  • Government's Response
  • Petitioner's Reply (as tendered)
  • United States v. Funk, Order Granting Rehearing En Banc (6th Cir, Dec. 18, 2008)
  • Government's Supplemental Brief
  • Appellee's Supplemental Brief
  
  
  
• United States v. Funk: Order Dismissing Government's Appeal
  On March 27, 2009, the Sixth Circuit, on the government's unopposed motion, dismissed with prejudice the government's appeal in United States v. Funk (see pleadings posted just above). The Court stated: "The opinion of the panel, which was vacated pursuant to the court's order of December 18, 2008 granting en banc review, 6 Cir. R. 35(a), remains vacated."
  
  
• Government Concedes Error in United States v. Vazquez
  A Panel of the Eleventh Circuit held that judges may not disagree with the policy of the career offender guideline. Vazquez filed a petition for rehearing en banc: (1) informing the Court that Congress expressly chose to make § 994(h) a directive to the Commission, not the courts, for the purpose of facilitating judicial feedback about (i.e., disagreement with) the guideline; (2) demonstrating that under Rita, Kimbrough and Gall, sentencing courts are free to disagree with guidelines that are based on congressional directives to the Commission; (3) showing that the career offender guideline did not arise from the Commission’s exercise of its characteristic institutional role; (4) detailing the position of every Circuit to decide the issue, and the Solicitor General of the United States, that courts are free to disagree with the career offender guideline; and (5) arguing that the Panel misapplied the Eleventh Circuit’s prior precedent rule.
  
  After denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, Vazquez petitioned for certiorari.  The Solicitor General has conceded error, arguing that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted, the judgment of the court of appeals vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings in light of the position of the United States asserted in its brief. On January 19, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in her brief.
  
  

• Child Pornography Guidelines

  • Deconstructing the Myth of Careful Study: A Primer on the Flawed Progression of the Child Pornography Guidelines (revised January 1, 2009) and Table of Amendments
    by Troy Stabenow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, W.D. MO
    
    
  • 2G2.2 Reply to Government
    This reply brief in a child pornography case refutes the government's argument that guidelines based on congressional directives are not properly subject to scrutiny by district court judges. The reply also supplements Troy Stabenow's paper (submitted at an earlier stage in the case) in showing that the Commission did not act in its characteristic institutional role in promulgating the child pornography guidelines.
    
    
  • Appellant's Brief Regarding Amount-of-Images Enhancement
    This brief, filed in the Sixth Circuit, argues that the amount-of-images enhancement to the child pornography guideline violates the separation of powers doctrine because Congress, not the Commission, unilaterally and directly promulgated that enhancement.
    
    
  • Troy Stabenow Letter to the Editor of the ABA Journal (July 13, 2009)
    (criticizing DOJ's response to ABA article on child pornography and the Sentencing Guidelines)
    
    

• Firearms Guideline

  • 2K2.1 Sentencing Memo
    This sentencing memo deconstructs the firearms guideline as applied in a particular case.
    

• Fraud Guidelines

  • Sentencing Memo in Fraud Case
    This sentencing memo deconstructs the guidelines applicable to fraud in a particular case.
    

• Probation

  • Amicus Brief, United States v. Tomko
    National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Third Circuit Federal Public & Community Defenders
    (In the context of a particular case, this brief deconstructs the tax guidelines as well as the guidelines' failure to provide for probation.)
    
    

• Relevant Conduct Guideline

  • Deconstructing the Relevant Conduct Guideline: Challenging the Use of Uncharged and Acquitted Offenses in Sentencing (Revised August 11, 2008)
    by Amy Baron-Evans & Jennifer Niles Coffin, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
    
    

• Tax Guideline

  • Amicus Brief, United States v. Tomko
    National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Third Circuit Federal Public & Community Defenders
    (In the context of a particular case, this brief deconstructs the tax guidelines as well as the guidelines' failure to provide for probation.)
    
    

• Deconstruction Resources

  • Senate Report on the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
    (a source of legislative history for the Deconstructing the Guidelines project)
  
  
  
  • Sentencing Resource Counsel Directives Table (Nov. 1, 2008)
    In 2004, the Commission collected every congressional directive enacted since the advent of the guidelines system. See Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform, Appendix B (Nov. 2004). This document updates that table so that it spans 1988 to the present. It also supplements the information in the Commission's table by including the actual language of the directive and describing in detail the changes made to the Guidelines Manual in response to the directive. In this form, the table is intended to serve as a research tool for deconstructing a particular guideline, focusing on the Commission's actions in response to each directive and showing whether the Commission's response exceeded the scope of the directive, contradicted it, or failed to respond at all.
  
  
  

• Developing mitigation evidence
  
  
• Persuasive writing/effective hearing
  
  
• Model documents

Even post-Booker, practitioners must understand how to correctly apply the advisory sentencing guidelines. This section will contain select articles addressing the application of a particular guideline or set of guidelines. For a comprehensive review of the law regarding guideline application issues, see Federal Sentencing Law and Practice (Thomas W. Hutchison, et al. eds., 2007), available at most law libraries and bookstores.

• Crack Cocaine Sentencing: Guideline Amendments and Elimination of Crack/Powder Disparity
  
  
• Endangering Human Life & the Environment - A Sentencing Hearing Potential
  by Gene Gietzen, Forensic Scientist, Forensic Consulting Associates, Springfield, MO
  (describing usefulness of expert testimony in combating the endangering human life and the environment enhancement in meth lab cases)
  
  
• "Annotated" USSG § 2K2.1 & Commentary
  by Brent E. Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, S.D. TX
  (providing step-by-step instruction in applying § 2K2.1, the firearms guideline)
  
  
• Challenging the Upward Bumps: The Categorical Approach and Other Sentencing Strategies for Illegal Re-Entry (8 U.S.C. §1326) Cases
  by Francisco Morales, Assistant Federal Public Defender, W.D. TX



• Analyzing Presentence Reports and Common Sentencing Issues in Illegal Reentry Cases
  by Shari Allison and James Langell, Assistant Federal Public Defenders D. NM
  
  
• Crimes of Violence Under §2L1.2
  compiled by Anne Berton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, W.D. TX



• Crimes of Violence Under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, Published Circuit Decisions
  by Shari Allison, Research and Writing Specialist; and James Langell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, D. NM



• Potential Uses of Begay & Chambers: Annotated Caselaw Outline
  by Anne E. Blanchard & Sara E. Noonan, Sentencing Resource Counsel Project
  (discussing caselaw for use in ACCA cases and career offender guideline cases)



• Begay and Beyond: Chipping Away at "Crimes of Violence"
  by Timothy Crooks, Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender, S.D. TX; and Margaret Katze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, D. NM

2009 Amendments: The USSC has amended a number of sentencing guidelines and commentary, effective November 1, 2009. The amendments include a change in the definition of “victim” in §2B1.1 to include certain persons who suffer non-pecuniary harm; an increase to the base offense level cap in hydrocodone cases; creation of a new guideline in response to the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008, which criminalizes the operation of certain submersibles or semi-submersibles; a change in the definition of “counterfeiting” so that bleached notes are included within it; creation of a new enhancement at §2L1.1 where a defendant is a leader or organizer and commits a harboring offense in furtherance of prostitution; and clarification that the undue influence enhancement at §2A3.2 and §2G1.3 applies to attempted conduct, but does not apply where the only “minor” involved is an undercover officer.

For more information on the impact of these amendments, as well as practice pointers, see the amendment summary and analysis prepared by the National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel.

An electronic version of the 2009 Guidelines Manual is available here.

Sentencing Commission Identifies Its Final Policy Priorities for 2010: The USSC has given notice of its final policy priorities for the 2010 guideline amendment cycle. These include: (1) continuation of efforts to solicit information at regional public hearings regarding federal sentencing practices, with the aim of issuing a report on its findings; (2) continuation of work on federal sentencing policy in light of Booker and its progeny, including possible development of amendments, recommendations to Congress, and study of, and possible reports on, statutory mandatory minimum penalties and the appellate standard of review applicable to post-Booker sentencing decisions; (3) review of guideline departures and possible revisions to the departure provisions; (4) continued study of, and a possible report on, alternatives to incarceration; (5) continuation of work on cocaine sentencing policy to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission’s 2002 and 2007 reports to Congress; (6) continuation of a multi-year study of the statutory and guideline definitions of “crime of violence”, “aggravated felony”, “violent felony”, and “drug trafficking crime”, possibly culminating in guideline amendments and/or a report to Congress recommending statutory changes; (7) resolution of circuit conflicts; (8) multi-year review of the guidelines and their application to human rights offenses and possible promulgation of guidelines or amendments with respect to these offenses; (9) review of child pornography offenses, and possible promulgation of guideline amendments and/or a report to Congress as a result of such review; (10) consideration of miscellaneous guideline application issues including clarification of the extent to which restitution is mandatory or discretionary in various circumstances, and the computation of criminal history points under §4A1.1(e); (11) implementation of crime legislation enacted during the 111th Congress warranting a Commission response. See the Defender Letter to the Commission of August 24, 2009 for comments on these policy priorities.

Alternatives to Incarceration: On July 14-15, 2008, the USSC held a national symposium on alternatives to incarceration in Washington, D.C. According to the Commission, the purposes of the symposium were "to gather information regarding the use of alternatives to incarceration and to provide a forum for idea-sharing concerning possible implementation of non-incarceration sanctions in the federal system." In January 2009 the Commission also issued an extensive report, Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System.

Defender Recommendations to Sentencing Commission: The Federal Defender community frequently submits written comments to the USSC on a variety of matters, including proposed amendments to the guidelines. These submissions, which may provide ideas for challenging guideline sentences, can be accessed on our Defender Recommendations to Sentencing Commission page.

• Pending Legislation to Eliminate Crack/Powder Sentencing Disparity



• Speech By Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, Chairman, U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (October 24, 2008)
  In this speech, presented at the Sentencing Advocacy, Practice and Reform Institute of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, Representative Scott argued for legislative action to correct the crack/powder cocaine disparity; criticized the abolition of parole and the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole; highlighted the disproportionate impact of high incarceration rates on minorities; criticized Congress's "mandatory directives" to the Sentencing Commission to increase sentences; promoted alternatives to incarceration; and said of Booker and its progeny that "Booker is not the problem [in federal sentencing]: Booker is the fix."

• The Presentence Investigation Report
  Publication 107 of the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services (March 2006)
  (a guide for U.S. probation officers in the preparation of presentence reports)

Occasionally counsel may represent a client who receives a sentence of probation. More often, clients will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which will be followed by a term of supervised release. Supervised release is similar to probation in that it involves supervision by a federal probation officer, and requires adherence to conditions set by the court at the original sentencing hearing. Whether the client faces the prospect of a sentence to probation, or a sentence of imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release, counsel should be familiar with the law and mechanics of these modes of supervision so that, among other things, counsel may argue for appropriate conditions, advise the client of the ramifications of violating those conditions, and prepare the client for the rigors of federal supervision.

Further, from time to time counsel may be appointed to represent a client who has allegedly violated the conditions of probation or supervised release, and thus faces the potential consequences of revocation and incarceration. Effective advocacy in a revocation case includes an understanding of the process due a client in a revocation proceeding, a familiarity with the applicable statutes and sentencing guidelines, and, if a violation is conceded or proved, the thorough preparation and presentation of mitigating evidence.

There have also been some advances in the movement toward alternatives to incarceration, other than probation, within the federal system. For example, the Second Chance Act includes provisions that could increase slightly the percentage of a federal sentence that can be served in home confinement.

Please visit our Probation/Supervised Release/Alternatives to Incarceration page for further information.