May 15, 2009
The latest briefing on fast-track disparity after Kimbrough
One of the most interesting and dynamic post-Booker issues still percolating in the lower courts concerns whether defendants who are not within so-called "fast-track" districts should be eligible for comparable early plea sentence reductions when their cases are factually similar to those who get the benefit of such reductions in "fast-track" districts. Before Kimbrough, the circuits had generally ruled that district courts lack discretion to provide such reductions without the blessing of the government. After Kimbrough, this issue has divided the circuits.
A helpful reader sent me a copy of a thorough and thoughtful brief on this fast-track disparity issue that was filed in the Seventh Circuit earlier this week. Here is how the appellate issue is presented in this brief (which can be downloaded below):
Whether the district court committed reversible procedural error when it determined that Seventh Circuit precedent precluded it from considering the sentences given in fast-track districts as part of its 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis, despite intervening Supreme Court decisions that abrogated the Seventh Circuit’s precedent.
I am pleased to report that the Federal Sentencing Reporter is in the midst of putting together an issue reviewing the recent past and current debate over fast-track sentencing discounts. This FSRfast-track issue ought to be out early this summer, though I am wondering if DOJ's working group on sentencing issues will be suggesting some new fast-track policies even before that issue goes to press.
Some recent related posts:
- The persistent problems with fast-track disparity after Booker and Kimbrough
- First Circuit blesses a variance based on fast-track disparity
- Ninth Circuit rejects variance based on fast-track disparity
- Eleventh Circuit panel splits over whether Kimbrough now allows consideration of fast-track disparity
- Notable briefing on fast-track disparity issue after Kimbrough
May 15, 2009 at 01:33 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The latest briefing on fast-track disparity after Kimbrough:
This brief is really top-notch stuff. I think they teed up the issue very nicely.
Posted by: Adam Kirgis | May 15, 2009 3:38:22 PM
I wonder-- with a Criminal History Category of VI and a +16 prior, what are the chances that any judge in the ND Illinois would actually impose a lower sentence if the appeal were successful?
I agree with the argument that the Court should consider the fast-track disparity under 3553(a)(6), but I think it's a pretty narrow issue that will help very few illegal-reentry defendants. Just my two cents.
Seems a like a lot of sizzle for very little steak.
Posted by: Jimmy | May 15, 2009 5:07:47 PM