Vol. 31, No. 4, #4. Federal Sentencing Landscape post-Gall: Tenth Circuit Perspective
Issue: August, 2008
Such discretion is hard to fathom for those of us who were around five years ago when the Protect Act severely restrained sentencing judges' ability to depart from the guideline range. Congress nearly prohibited departures in sex offense cases, and placed almost all departures in the "rare" category. Judges were warned their departure rates would be closely monitored.
The rigidity in sentencing dismayed many practitioners. In hindsight, though, the Protect Act was the zenith of the pendulum swing, and the momentum is now headed the other direction, led by a series of Supreme Court decisions, commencing with United States v Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Supreme Court held that mandatory guidelines were unconstitutional. Rather than throwing them out completely, the Court rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory.
The remedial portion of Booker clarified that sentencing in the federal system commences with a properly calculated guideline range. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v Crockett, 435 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2006), clarified that a properly calculated advisory guideline range is based upon all facts established by a preponderance standard. This procedure...
