Recent Posts

New Jersey Estate Tax: What You Should Know
Estate Planning for Same Sex Couples
The Court Grants Motion to Suppress Good Case For The Defense Bar
Racial Profiling--4th Amendment Injustice related to evidence supporessed
No Crack Reduction for Career Offenders Even if Sentence is Based On the Crack Range

Categories

Criminal Law
Current Events
Introduction of Jason Matey's blog
Speedy Trial Defense not triggered after 27 month delay
Wills: The Basics
powered by

My Blog

Crack reduction cases: Court upholds denial of proportional reductions below amended guideline range to account for variance in original sentence

In United States v. Berberena (Sept. 11, 2012), , the Court affirmed denials of sentence reductions below the amended Guideline range in two crack reduction cases. When Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines implemented the Fair Sentencing Act by reducing the crack-powder disparity, the defendants moved for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Both defendants had received below Guideline sentences. In making Amendment 750 retroactive, the Sentencing Commission also adopted a new version of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the policy statement governing “Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range.” 

As amended, §1B1.10 provides that “the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.” § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (Nov. 2011). The one exception is for defendants who provided substantial assistance to the government. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 2011). Before the 2011 amendments, the Guidelines permitted proportional reductions in sentence to account for departures of any kind, although they were discouraged when a below Guidelines sentence was based on a variance. § 1B1.10(b)(1)(B) (Nov. 2007). 

Here, neither defendant had cooperated and the District Courts denied sentence reductions below the amended Guideline range. The Third Circuit rejected the defendants’ three challenges to the binding policy statement in § 1B1.10. First, the Court found the Sentencing Commission had the statutory authority under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), 28 U.S.C. § 994, to limit the sentencing reductions in 3582 proceedings. Next, the Court found that the policy statement did not violate separation-of-power principles: it was not an impermissible delegation of legislative authority, nor did it infringe upon the exercise of judicial authority because the Commission was appropriately situated within the judiciary. 

Finally, the Court found that the Commission was not required to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements when issuing policy statements.

Jason Charles Matey, Esq. 

2 Comments to Crack reduction cases: Court upholds denial of proportional reductions below amended guideline range to account for variance in original sentence:

Comments RSS
lawyers for motor vehicle accident on Saturday, June 01, 2013 3:06 AM
it was good to read your post on Crack reduction cases: Court upholds denial of proportional reductions below amended guideline range to account for variance in original sentence. nice information you shared with this.
Reply to comment


OFAC SDN List on Friday, June 07, 2013 6:12 AM
Oh my God I was unaware of the facts you mentioned in your blog. It is so helpful. I am highly thankful to you.
Reply to comment

Add a Comment

Your Name:
Email Address: (Required)
Website:
Comment:
Make your text bigger, bold, italic and more with HTML tags. We'll show you how.
Website Builder
provided by Vistaprint