Facts
Brian Gall was a sophomore at the University of Iowa when he befriended Luke Rinderknecht, who got Gall into selling ecstasy. Over the course of seven months, Gall made over $30,000 selling the drug. Then he stopped using ecstasy, graduated from college, moved to Arizona, got a job in the construction industry, and then became a master carpenter in Colorado. He had not used any illegal drugs since graduating from college.
While Gall was living in Arizona, federal agents approached him as part of an investigation into the drug conspiracy. He admitted participating in it for a brief time, and the agents moved on with their investigation. A year and a half after the agents approached Gall, Gall was indicted as part of an ongoing drug distributing ring that lasted from 1996 until 2002. By this time, Gall had been away from the drug ring for over three years. When the indictment came down, Gall returned to Iowa, surrendered to authorities, and was released on his own recognizance pending trial. While awaiting trial, Gall began his own contracting business, making profits of $2,000 per month in his first year. Gall was represented by attorney Marc Milavitz from Boulder, Colorado.
Gall struck a plea bargain with the Government, stipulating that he was responsible for the equivalent under the federal sentencing guidelines of 87.5 kilograms of marijuana. (This was relevant for sentencing purposes.) The Government acknowledged that Gall had withdrawn from the conspiracy in September 2000. The probation office also concluded (again, for sentencing purposes) that Gall was never an organizer or leader in the conspiracy, that his offense did not involve the use of weapons, and that he had no significant criminal history. The probation officer's report also pointed out that Gall had always been candid with the Government, but that his information was not useful to the investigators. Ultimately the probation officer recommended a sentence of 30 to 37 months.
At the sentencing hearing, several witnesses testified to Gall's good character. The defense reminded the court that two of Gall's accused codefendants had been sentenced to 30 and 35 months, respectively, and neither of them had voluntarily withdrawn from the conspiracy as Gall had. Although the Government's attorney urged the court to impose a sentence within the range recommended by the probation office, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt ultimately imposed a sentence of 36 months' probation, explaining that it had considered the purposes of punishment and how a probation-only sentence would further those goals. The Government then appealed the sentence.
The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded the sentence. As circuit precedent required at the time, the court noted that the district court had not justified the sentence adequately in light of the proportional variation from the bottom end of the Guidelines range. Because Gall's probation-only sentence was, in effect, a 100% downward variation from the Guidelines range, the court reasoned, it had to be justified by extraordinary circumstances, circumstances that were not present in Gall's case. After Claiborne v. the United States terminated with the unexpected premature death of the defendant, in that case, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gall's case in order to clarify how the lower federal courts should handle sentences falling outside the Guidelines range.
Majority opinion
After United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are merely one of seven factors federal district courts must look to when imposing sentences, and federal appellate courts must review those sentences for "reasonableness." "Our explanation of 'reasonableness' review in the Booker opinion made it pellucidly clear that the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard of review now applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions." At the same time, while the Guidelines are one factor among many, they remain the product of empirical study of thousands of sentencing decisions over a quarter of a century. Accordingly, while sentences that fall farther outside the Guidelines range must be justified with appropriate reference to the other factors, no "rigid mathematical formula" can dictate the precise extent of that justification. Such a formula smacks of a presumption of unreasonableness for sentences imposed outside the Guidelines range, an approach the Court rejects and that the Government had conceded was inconsistent with Booker.
With respect to the sentence the district court had imposed on Gall, it is of course true that custodial sentences are qualitatively more harsh than noncustodial ones, even taking into account the restrictions on freedom that any program of probation will entail. Yet the Court concluded that it was nearly unworkable to arrive at "some ascertainable method of assigning percentages to various justifications" district courts might proffer for various sentences. More importantly, however, was that the proportionality review the Eighth Circuit had employed effectively imposed a greater standard of review on some sentences than on others. Such an approach is inconsistent with an abuse-of-discretion standard of review that the Court in Booker and again in Rita v. United States had held should apply.
Turning to the particular facts of this case, the Court commented that the district judge had committed no significant procedural error. He correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the statutory factors, and "thoroughly documented his reasoning." In particular, the judge did not ignore the seriousness of the offense. To be sure, he did not specifically recite the adverse health effects that ecstasy presents. Yet the prosecutor did not urge those adverse health consequences as a basis for imposing the sentence it felt was reasonable. "It was not incumbent upon the District Judge to raise every conceivably relevant issue on his own initiative." Moreover, the probation-only sentence in this case promotes respect for the law. Seven of the eight defendants in the case received prison terms. Gall did not because, as the district judge explained, "a sentence of imprisonment may work to promote not respect, but derision, of the law if the law is viewed merely as a means to dispense harsh punishment without taking into account the real conduct and circumstances in sentencing." Finally, Gall understandably received a more lenient sentence because he withdrew from the conspiracy while the other defendants did not.
The Court also held that the sentence was substantively reasonable. Virtually no conspiracy defendants voluntarily withdraw; Gall did, and did so years before he even knew he was the target of a federal investigation. In the Court's eyes, this was a sign of genuine rehabilitation. "Compared to a case where the offender's rehabilitation occurred after he was charged with a crime, the District Court here had greater justification for believing Gall's turnaround was genuine, as distinct from a transparent attempt to build a mitigation case." The Eighth Circuit had faulted the district court for taking into account Gall's youth at the time of the crime; the Supreme Court noted that such a consideration was permissible as part of the "history and characteristics of the defendant." The Government had never contended that a probation-only sentence was inappropriate in a case such as Gall's; in fact, it had conceded that such a sentence might sometimes be appropriate. These differing policy choices were incompatible with an abuse-of-discretion review; hence, the Eighth Circuit's decision could not stand.
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who characterized the decision as a "Number 10 earthquake".
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."
Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors or infractions.
Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
José Alberto Cabranes is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a former presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). Formerly a practicing lawyer, government official, and law teacher, he was the first Puerto Rican appointed to a federal judgeship in the continental United States (1979).
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, in upholding the sentencing decision by the trial court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that federal district judges utilize, in an advisory fashion, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack cocaine.
Weldon Angelos is a music producer who was sentenced in a high profile marijuana case involving mandatory minimum sentences that was presented to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case but Angelos was later released from prison 13 years later due to public pressure from celebrities, United States Senators, the judge that sentenced him, and ultimately the prosecutor who prosecuted him.
Raymond Alvin Jackson is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision following release from prison.
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, is a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and asset forfeiture. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Frederick Banks, a Pittsburgh man, on numerous felony charges resulting from fraudulent schemes carried out over the Internet. The case takes its title, which has been singled out as memorable and included among lists of amusingly titled cases, from one of Banks' aliases, an electronic music group of which he was the sole regular member. He had filed the appeal under that name while representing himself.
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held regardless of whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, an error is "plain" within the meaning of Rule 52(b) of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review.
United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k)'s five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federal supervised releasees as unconstitutional unless the charges are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Gorsuch's plurality opinion, while Breyer provided the necessary fifth vote with his narrow concurrence that began by saying he agreed with much of Justice Alito's dissent, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.
