Tag: downward variances

Practice Notes: Sauce For The Goose

July 20th, 2014

I enjoy studying upward variance opinions, as they usually contain language and rules that can be used by the defense to support downward variances in other cases. This is true because, whatever specific factors are discussed, federal appeals courts typically speak of what justifies such variances in general terms, not distinguishing between upward and downward excursions. United States v. Ransom, decided earlier this month by the D.C. Circuit in an opinion by Judge David Sentelle, is no exception. Chester Ransom and Bryan Talbott each pled guilty to a fraud scheme and stipulated to a non-binding Guideline range of 46-57 months. The sentencing court calculated Ransom's range at 46-57 months but upwardly varied to a 72 month sentence. The court calculated Talbott's range at 63-78 months but upwardly varied to a 120 month sentence.

The Court initially held that Ransom's upward variance for lack of remorse was not inconsistent with the three point downward adjustment he received for acceptance of responsibility under Section 3E1.1(a) and (b). The Court in essence stated that one can plead guilty early and cooperate with the government without showing any remorse.

Next the Court rejected appellants' argument that the sentencing court improperly relied on factors in varying upward that the Guidelines had already accounted for. Joining some sister circuits the Court held (internal quotes and citations omitted) that:

It is not error for a district court to enter sentencing variances based on factors already taken into account by the Advisory Guidelines, in a case in which the Guidelines do not fully account for those factors or when a district court applies broader [Section] 3553(a) considerations in granting the variance.

As anyone who does federal sentencing work knows, those broader 3553(a) factors are often the key to obtaining a downward variance if the court is otherwise inclined to do so. To take one example, in the Mandatory Guidelines era it was almost impossible to obtain a downward departure based on family circumstances, but they can, and must, at least be "considered" by the sentencing court under the current regime. Believe it or not, not every district judge comprehends this simple rule. Ergo, it is nice to have additional case law on one's side.

(wisenberg)
Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities Among Defendants With Similar Records Who Have Been Found Guilty Of Similar Conduct

February 26th, 2014

Juan Prado was a mildly corrupt Chicago cop who pled guilty to taking bribes from tow truck operators in order to funnel business their way. At sentencing he argued for a downward variance based on several factors, including the downward variance received by James Wodnicki, an allegedly similarly situated Chicago cop who was sentenced in a related case. The sentencing court ruled, incorrectly, that Seventh Circuit precedent only allowed it to consider nationwide sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553 (a)(6). It refused to consider any arguments, from either the prosecution or defense, based on Wodnicki's downward variance, and sentenced Prado to a within-Guidelines prison term of 42 months. Last week, in United States v. Prado, the Seventh Circuit reversed, since the sentencing court was unaware that it could consider Wodnicki's sentence in applying 3553 (a)(6), and since the Seventh Circuit thought this may have affected Prado's sentence. The opinion reaffirms two important points, to wit–that sentencing disparities can be considered on both individual and global levels, and that within-Guidelines sentences can be reversed when based on erroneous assumptions. Interestingly, Prado did not raise this specific ground of error until the case reached the appellate court, but the government failed to argue Prado's waiver on appeal. Ergo, the waived waiver doctrine applied.

(wisenberg)
Pepper On Deck

December 3rd, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument Monday in Pepper v. United States, out of the Eighth Circuit. The questions presented are: 1) whether a court of appeals can categorically prevent a sentencing court from considering a defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation; and 2) whether, when a new judge is assigned to re-sentence the defendant after remand, the judge is obligated under law of the case doctrine to follow the original sentencing judge's findings that were left undisturbed on appeal.

Although Pepper was a drug prosecution, the case will have important consequences for white collar practitioners. On a broader level, the Eighth Circuit's opinion should be seen as part of a massive resistance to the Booker-Gall-Kimbrough line of cases by some of our federal appellate courts. Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a)(1) commands the sentencing court to consider "the history and characteristics of the defendant" in determining the sentence to be imposed and Section 3661 directs that "[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence."

As the U.S. Supreme Court established in Booker, and reiterated in Gall and Kimbrough, a sentencing Court has broad discretion to consider nearly every aspect of a particular case (and a particular defendant) in fashioning an appropriate sentence. “It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 52 (citing Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996)).

Apparently none of this impressed the Eighth Circuit. When the district court originally sentenced Jason Pepper to 24 months, based on a 75% downward departure for substantial assistance, the Eighth Circuit reversed in Pepper I. On remand the district court gave Pepper a 40% downward departure for substantial assistance, followed by a 59% downward variance, resulting once more in a 24 month sentence. One of the reasons the sentencing court cited for the variance was Pepper's post-sentencing rehabilitation. The Eighth Circuit reversed again, in Pepper II, upholding the 40% departure, but overturning the variance, based, among other things, on its flat rule prohibiting consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit for reconsideration in light of Gall. The Eighth Circuit reconsidered but reached the same result in Pepper III. Pepper was then resentenced by a different sentencing court that did not consider itself bound by the 40% downward departure for substantial assistance and also rejected any downward variance. The new sentence was 77 months, later reduced to 65 months after the Government filed a Rule 35(b) Motion. That sentence was affirmed in Pepper IV. Believe it or not, this is a truncated history.

The portion of the Eighth Circuit's ruling prohibiting consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation is so bad that not even DOJ will defend it. The Eighth Circuit is certainly not alone in trying to gut Booker-Gall-Kimbrough. Many other circuits are piling on, usually under the guise of finding procedural errors by the district courts. More and more of these procedural errors look suspiciously substantive in nature. We are at a critical juncture.

Here are some of the briefs: Pepper Brief for Petitioner Pepper Brief for the United States Pepper Petitioner's Reply Brief Pepper NACDL Amicus Brief Pepper U.S. Reply Brief Pepper Amicus Brief in Support of Judgment Below

(wisenberg)

Tag: downward variances

Practice Notes: Sauce For The Goose

Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities Among Defendants With Similar Records Who Have Been Found Guilty Of Similar Conduct

Pepper On Deck