Category Archives: Federal Sentencing

2017 United States Sentencing Commission Website.

01 Saturday Apr 2017

Posted by in Criminal Law, Federal Law, Federal Sentencing, Research, Sentencing Guidelines

≈ Comments Off on 2017 United States Sentencing Commission Website.

Tags

, , ,

United States Sentencing Commission

http://www.ussc.gov/

This federal government website has a honey pot of information. It has six categories. Here are some highlights you will find under each category:

1. About (includes Mission Statement and online seminar titled ‘An Insider Look at the United States Sentencing Commission’);

2. Guidelines (the 2016 Guidelines Manual, Sentencing Table, and Organizational Guidelines, including the most recent primers on various areas of criminal law);

3. Policymaking (Rules of Practice and Procedure);

4. Education (Guideline Training Materials);

5. By Topic; and

6. Research (Public Access to Commission Data and Documents List Of all Publications, 2016 Sourcebook, Quick Facts, and Data Reports).

The information you will find here is current and up to date. You can be sure that you are researching the most recent and updated guidelines, primers, sentencing table, policy, and laws. -CCE

Advertisements

Federal Sentencing Guidelines Effective November 1, 2015.

25 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Criminal Law, Federal Sentencing

≈ Comments Off on Federal Sentencing Guidelines Effective November 1, 2015.

Tags

, ,

2015 USSC Guidelines Manual, United States Sentencing Commission

http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2015/2015-ussc-guidelines-manual

The 2015 Guidelines Manual (effective November 1, 2015) is available in HTML and Adobe PDF formats (large file and broken into chapters), which can be viewed, downloaded or printed via the website. . . .

Continue reading →

Justice Scalia’s Interpretation of Criminal Statutes And “Rule of Lenity.”

22 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Civil Rights, Constitutions, Criminal Law, Federal Law, Federal Sentencing, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Law Enforcement, Research, Statutes, United States Supreme Court, White Collar Crime

≈ Comments Off on Justice Scalia’s Interpretation of Criminal Statutes And “Rule of Lenity.”

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Scalia Weighs In On One of the Most Important Questions in the World of White-Collar Criminal Defense, by Matt Kaiser, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kahbnvm

Justice Scalia is not a man known for mild opinions. I hear the other Justices have voted him ‘least likely to say ‘this is a question on which reasonable minds could disagree.’

While a conservative, Scalia has done good work for those charged in criminal cases in recent years. He’s been good on Fourth Amendment issues, the Confrontation Clause, and federal sentencing.

And, at oral argument recently, on what is perhaps the most significant criminal justice issue of the day — how broadly we should interpret criminal statutes — Scalia has turned his considerable intellect again in a defense-friendly way.

How, you ask?

Whether to interpret a criminal statute broadly or narrowly is an intricate question. The ‘Rule of Lenity says that criminal statutes should be interpreted narrowly. Yet courts often read in a meta-‘Rule of Lenity’ that says that the Rule of Lenity itself should be interpreted narrowly.

Moreover, judicial review of the scope of a criminal statute is tricky. There are thousands of federal criminal statutes on the books and Congress makes more every year. About 95% of the time, people charged with federal crimes plead guilty. Courts are highly resistant to litigate the meaning and breadth of a federal criminal statute before trial, which means that challenges to the interpretation of a statute are possible in a very small number of cases.

What that means is that prosecutors’ interpretations of federal statutes are highly unlikely to be meaningfully challenged. And, when they are, generally they are interpreted broadly. . . .

Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Sentencing Table.

04 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by in Criminal Law, Federal Sentencing

≈ Comments Off on Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Sentencing Table.

Tags

, , ,

Federal Sentencing Guidelines, by Criminal Defense Lawyer.com

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/federal-sentencing-guidelines.cfm

Includes a Sentencing Table and other facts that impact how criminal sentences are determined. -CCE

The federal sentencing guidelines are rules that federal judges are required to consider when sentencing someone who has been convicted of a crime. Intended to give federal judges fair and consistent sentencing ranges to consult when they are handing down a sentence, the guidelines are based on both the seriousness of the crime and the particular offender’s characteristics and criminal record.

The guidelines are not mandatory. (United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 20 (2005).) But a judge who wants to impose a sentence that is different—whether it’s harsher or more lenient—from the one calculated by using the guidelines must explain the decision.

The United States Sentencing Commission

Federal sentencing guidelines are written by an independent agency called the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which is part of the judicial branch of the federal government. In addition to promulgating the guidelines, the commission advises the other branches of government on criminal policy matters and collects and analyzes crime and sentencing data.

How the Sentencing Guidelines Work

The guidelines assign most federal crimes to one of 43 ‘offense levels.’  Each offender is assigned to one of six ‘criminal history categories,’ based upon the extent and recency of past criminal activity.

The point at which the offense level and criminal history category intersect on the Commission’s sentencing table determines an offender’s guideline range.  To provide flexibility, the top of each guideline range exceeds the bottom by six months or 25 percent (whichever is greater).  Judges are advised to choose a sentence from within the guideline range unless they identify a factor that the Sentencing Commission failed to consider that should result in a different sentence. . . .