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

Sentencing Commission Announces its Proposed Policy Priorities for 2009

The USSC has given notice of its proposed policy priorities for the 2009 guideline amendment cycle. These include: work on federal sentencing policy in light of Booker and its progeny, including recommending legislation concerning federal sentencing policy and studying mandatory minimum penalties; consideration of alternatives to incarceration; implementation of recently enacted crime legislation, including the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007; consideration of miscellaneous guideline application issues, such as commission of an offense while on release (§3C1.3); resolution of circuit conflicts; work on cocaine sentencing policy regarding the crack-powder disparity; and study of the definition of "crime of violence". The period for public comment concluded on September 8, 2008. Click here and here for the federal defender community's response to these priorities.

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.