Tag Archives: sentencing

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Eligibility for Lowered Sentencing Range

Published By Stephen Preziosi

Koons v. United States

U.S. Supreme Court

No. 17-5716

Decided June 4, 2018

Issue:

Whether petitioners qualify for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) where the sentences were “based on” mandatory minimums and not the Sentencing Guidelines ranges.

Holding:

The Supreme Court held that petitioners do not qualify for sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) because their sentences were not “based on” the lowered Guidelines ranges but, rather, they were based on their mandatory minimums and on their “substantial assistance” to the Government.

Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)

Facts:

Five petitioners pled guilty to drug conspiracy charges that subjected them to mandatory minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). When the District Court calculated their advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges, the top end of the ranges fell below the mandatory minimums. The court determined that the mandatory minimums superseded the Guidelines ranges and, thus the Guidelines ranges were discarded. However, because of the petitioners’ cooperation with the Government, the court departed downward from the mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. §3553(e).

The Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines several years after the petitioners were sentenced. Among those amendments included a reduction of base offense levels for the same drug offenses for which petitioners were convicted. The petitioners sought sentence reductions under §3582(c)(2), which allows a defendant’s sentence to be reduced if that sentence was imposed based on a sentencing range that was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission. The lower courts held that the petitioners were not eligible for sentence reductions because they failed to demonstrate that their sentences were “based on” the lowered Guideline ranges.

Legal Analysis:

The primary function of the Sentencing Guidelines is to recommend to the judge an appropriate sentencing range by taking into account the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. However, these Guidelines are only advisory and can even be overridden in some cases. For instance, if there is a “mandatory minimum” sentence that must be imposed, the judge must consider the required minimum sentence over the sentencing range provided by the Guidelines where a conflict exists. Here, because the top end of the Guidelines range fell below the mandatory minimum sentences, the district court concluded that the statutorily required minimums superseded the Guidelines ranges for each petitioner, and the advisory ranges were discarded.

For a defendant to become eligible for a sentence within the lowered Guidelines range, the sentence must have been “based on” that lowed advisory range. Quoting Hughes v. United States, ante, at 14, the Court noted that a sentence is “based on” the lowered range when the range “played a relevant part in the framework the sentencing judge used’ in imposing the sentence.” By contrast, when the advisory ranges are tossed aside in the course of determining a sentence, the imposed sentence is not based on a Guidelines range.

The Court concluded that the petitioners’ sentences were not “based on” the lowered Guidelines range because the ranged played “no relevant part” in the district court’s sentencing determination. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to §3582(c)(2) reductions.

The petitioners also asserted that, because the Guidelines range serves as the starting point for every federal sentencing calculation, all sentences are “based on” the Guidelines ranges. The Court made clear, however, that whether the Guidelines range played a part in the initial calculation is irrelevant and that it is, rather, the role the range played in the eventual calculation that should be considered. The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners’ remaining arguments.

For Criminal Appeals In New York see www.appealslawfirm.com

Unconstitutional Federal Statute Calls Supreme Court to Protect Sixth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury

Published By Stephen Preziosi

United States v. Haymond

No. 17-1672

U.S. Supreme Court

Decided: June 26, 2019

ISSUE

Whether 18 U.S.C. §3583(k)’s requirement that a district court impose a mandatory minimum prison sentence by a preponderance of the evidence for certain offenses committed during supervised release violates the constitution’s guarantee of a trial by jury. 

HOLDING

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3583(k) is unconstitutional unless the charges can be proven by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Haymond was found guilty of possessing child pornography by a jury and was sentenced to 38 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release. During his supervised release, the government discovered what appeared to be child pornography on Haymond’s phone. As a result of the violation, the government sought additional incarceration for Haymond.

A district judge found that Haymond knowingly possessed the images depicting child pornography by a proponderence of the evidence. Under 18 U.S.C. §3583(k) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of five years where a defendant has violated supervised release by committing certain offenses. Relevant to this case, one of those listed offenses is possession of child pornography. Although reluctant to do so, the district judge imposed the mandatory 5-year sentence.

The Tenth Circuit found that §3583(k) violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, acknowledging that while a jury previously convicted Haymond by a reasonable doubt resulting in a 0-10 year sentence, §3583(k) allowed Haymond to face a higher mandatory minimum only by a judge’s finding of a preponderance of the evidence. This, the Tenth Circuit held, violated Haymond’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. Haymond was resentenced without regard to §3583(k)’s provisions, and the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve the question of the statute’s constitutionality.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantee the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury and due process of law in criminal proceedings in the United States. A jury’s finding of guilt must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Only after a jury finds a defendant guilty of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt may the judge impose a penalty within the range allowed for that offense. The Supreme Court recognizes that “even when judges [enjoy] discretion to adjust a sentence based on judge-found aggravating or mitigating facts, they [cannot] ‘swell the penalty above what the law [provides] for the acts charged.’” 588 U.S. ___ (2019) quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 at 519 (Thomas, J., concurring). 

Here, §3583(k) permits just that. Only as a result of the district judge’s finding of the defendant’s guilt by a preponderance of the evidence is the five-year mandatory minimum imposed. Contrary to the government’s argument, this new sentence was not authorized by the jury’s verdict.

The Supreme Court  already held a similar statutory scheme allowing judges to impose sentences above the allowed maximum unconstitutional. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, a judge sought to impose a longer sentence than the prescribed maximum after a jury trial pursuant to a statute that permitted him to do so under a preponderance of the evidence standard. The Court held this scheme unconstitutional and later applied the same rule when it held a similar sentence enhancement unconstitutional in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 466.

Section 3583(k) essentially permits district courts to impose a new and potentially harsher punishment for a new offense. By allowing a judge to increase “‘the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences’ [is] in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” 588 U.S. ___ (2019) (quoting Alleyne at 115). The Supreme Court vacated Haymond’s judgment, holding §3583(k) unconstitutional.

government breached plea agreement

Post-Incarceration Supervised Release Tolled During Pre-Conviction Detention

Published By Stephen Preziosi

Mont v. United States
No. 17-8995
U.S. Supreme Court
Decided: June 3, 2019

Issue

Whether a convicted criminal’s period of supervised release is tolled during pretrial detention for a new criminal offense.

Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court held that pretrial incarceration later credited as time served for a new conviction is imprisonment in connection with a new conviction and thus tolls the supervised release term under §3624(e), even if the court does not make the tolling calculation until after the conviction. 

Facts of the Case

While serving a 5-year term of supervised release following a federal prison sentence, petitioner Mont was arrested on state drug charges. At that time, about nine months of supervised release remained. 

Eventually, Mont pled guilty to state charges and admitted to violating his federal supervised release conditions. The state court sentenced Mont to six years’ imprisonment and a few days later the District Court issued a warrant for the supervised release violations after previously declining to do so. By the time Mont was sentenced on the state charges, the original term of his supervised release had expired. Mont argued the District Court had no jurisdiction over him because the federal warrant was issued after his supervised release was set to expire.

The District Court rejected Mont’s argument, ruling that it had jurisdiction under 18 USC §3583(i), and sentenced Mont to an additional 42 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision but on grounds that Mont’s supervised release period had been tolled under §3624(e) while Mont was incarcerated while awaiting sentencing. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Court’s Analysis

18 U.S.C. §3624(e), under which the District Court based its decision provides:

“. . . A term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.”

The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the phrase “in connection with” bears a broad interpretation. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 (2006). The Court holds that pretrial detention of a conviction is “in connection with” the conviction. Had Congress intended to preclude pretrial detention, the Court reasoned, it would have used language such as “following a conviction” or “after a conviction.” The use of the language “in connection with a conviction” assumes pretrial incarceration. 

Moreover, the Court recognizes supervised release as a means to facilitate a “transition to community life.” United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60 (2000). Therefore, according to the Court, incarceration should not substitute supervised released and, in this case, Mont’s pretrial detention should not be credited toward his remaining supervised release. Instead, Mont’s supervised release should be tolled as per Congress’s original intent. If supervised release were not tolled, the ultimate purpose of supervised release would be frustrated. By tolling the supervised release by his pretrial detention, the District Court ensures Mont serves five years as a transitional period into a law-abiding life.

Sentence Reduction and Rule 35(b) Motions and the 3553(a) Factors

Published By Stephen Preziosi

USA v. KATSMAN

16-2583-cr

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided on October 10, 2018

 

ISSUE

ONE Whether the district court is allowed to deny the government’s motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a reduction of sentence where the courts determined that the defendant provided substantial assistance in an ongoing matter and reaped the benefits of his cooperation in said matter dealing with SDNY. TWO Whether the factors in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) should be a used in determining the reduction of a sentence pursuant to a motion under Rule 35(b) where the defendant was offered a plea deal in exchange for substantial assistance in an ongoing matter that the defendant had previously participated in.

 

HOLDING

ONE The Court held that the district court is allowed to deny the government’s motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) because such motions are to be decided in two steps: first it determines whether the defendant in fact provided substantial assistance; where the defendant pleaded guilty in SDNY with charges solely based on information voluntarily provided during proffer sessions. Second, if so, it must then determine what, if any, reduction in sentence is warranted; where no reduction in sentencing. TWO The Court held that the factors under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) may be used in determining the reduction of a sentence because it directly effects step two in deciding whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence in light of his cooperation.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

On November 17, 2010, Igor Katsman pled guilty in the EDNY to charges relating to a fraudulent check-cashing scheme and was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment. He moved to withdraw his guilty plea or for resentencing before a different judge. Consequently, his motion to withdraw was denied and his resentencing resulted in a total of 120 months’ imprisonment.

 

In 2013, the FBI and USAO-SDNY approached Katsman about cooperating in a separate case pending in the SDNY regarding a no-fault insurance fraud scheme and various investment frauds. Subsequently, the government entered into a joint EDNY-SDNY cooperation agreement with Katsman, and the government agreed to make a Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentencing in EDNY because he provided substantial assistance in the ongoing matter. In February 2015, Katsman was required to plead guilty to uncharged criminal conduct in SDNY as part of the plea deal.

 

The following year, the USAO-EDNY filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) in the EDNY for resentencing based on his substantial assistance in the prosecutions in the SDNY. While the 125 years’ imprisonment in the SDNY sentencing was reduced to a sentence of time served, the district court denied the government’s motion to reduce sentencing in the EDNY. Following Katsman’s initial appeal and remand from the federal court, the district court issued its decision and a summary of its reasoning, which is sealed.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS

In this case, the courts find that in deciding a Rule 35(b) motion, the district court must first determine whether the defendant in fact provided substantial assistance and second, if it does, the court must determine what, if any, reduction in sentence is warranted. The federal court did not accept Katsman’s argument that the district court “conflated these discrete steps into one.” They determined that the district court fulfilled the requirements of the first step by inferring that “Katsman clearly provided substantial assistance” when he pleaded guilty to a “uncharged criminal conduct” in the SDNY. They then determined that the district fulfilled the requirements of the second step by explaining that a “120-month sentencing, the middle of the guidelines range, remains sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of Section 3553(a)” D.Ct. Dkt. No. 103 because, among other things, Katsman had already received the benefit of his cooperation in the SDNY when the 125 years’ imprisonment in the SDNY sentencing was reduced to a sentence of time served.

 

While the federal court has yet to address the role of factors in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), if any, in sentencing reduction pursuant to a Rule 35(b) motion, the text also does not preclude the district court from considering factors in addition to the defendant’s “substantial assistance” and to what extent. In fact, Rule 35’s use of the word “may” implies discretion and “discretion can best be exercised by considering the various sentencing factors”. The only limitation, however, is found under Rule 35(b) which requires that the defendant provides “substantial assistance if he is to receive any benefit for his cooperation.” Additionally, Section 3553(a) requires that courts “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” and that they consider the “statutory factors in determining the particular sentence to be imposed.”

 

If the courts were required to resentence a defendant considering only substantial assistance, there would be “too little discretion for the court to exercise” in deciding whether a reduced sentence is “warranted or prudent under the circumstance.” United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 2014-05 (11th Cir. 1996). A defendant’s circumstances could change after the sentencing in a way that has an effect on the appropriateness of his sentencing. Take, for instance, a defendant with a terminal illness which may result in a greater reduction. As opposed to a defendant like Katsman who continued to engage in criminal behavior and lied to the courts about it which may result in a smaller reduction. Thus, the Circuit Court found that on a Rule 35(b) motion, the trial court may apply the 3553(a) factors at sentencing.