WPCWU t+6ر4TRTQȽ-#j'WJM˨m80ܣ\L w>̊W,q }[:,6@槭ʾC*pTz"bGҕ"_(3=AM6CL[BXo3<]88EtduŤզQjTl]ruwm,)e)^7 L^#$UN %; 0:A U F{ ^ w 4   m n -{ 0 ~ 0 D&j]oU>=S.o)67;siA 0UC 01D 0E 0E 0F 09G 0G 0H 0.I 0I 0J 0SK 0L 0L 0HM 0M 0xN 0O 0O 0JP 0Q 0Q 0`R 0R 0S 0(T 0TN8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U8U B:U\\OSU-LAW_TREE\room326_lj5simx,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular0 h0BT3|x&U BLAKELY t]heMistrettaWitteStinsonAgostiniFeltonParmeleeCannadyTarwaterOchaonondelegationC.I.R. O]neBollmanO]nlyGipson KASSnacktimeu]ntilDubucCargillAssnChhienbackgddecisis nonlegislativerulemakingKinterApprendis]ince ##Xd#(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    4    _ ` XnXXXSeealso28U.S.C.991(b)(1)(B)(Commissiondirectedto  establishsentencingpoliciesthat providecertaintyand  fairnessinmeetingthepurposesofsentencingandthat avoid[] \ unwarrantedsentencingdisparitiesamongdefendantswithsimilar 2 recordswhohavebeenfoundguiltyofsimilarcriminalconduct X whilemaintaining sufficientflexibilitytopermit . individualizedsentences). S ($USUS.,    5    _ ` XnXXXThecourtsofappealshavewidelyheldthatthe  Guidelinesalsocomportwithdueprocess.See,e.g.,United  Statesv.Govan,152F.3d1088,1094(9thCir.1998);United \ Statesv.Piper,35F.3d611,620(1stCir.1994);UnitedStates 2 v.Spencer,25F.3d1105,1112(D.C.Cir.1994);UnitedStatesv. X Kerr,13F.3d203,207(7thCir.1993);UnitedStatesv. . Guajardo,950F.2d203,206(5thCir.1991);UnitedStatesv.   Delibac,925F.2d610,61415(2dCir.1991).  ($USUS.,    6    _ ` XnXXXIndeed,informulatingtheGuidelines,theCommission  canvassedpriorsentencingpracticeandattemptedtoidentifyand  toassignweightstoallthefactorsthatjudgestraditionally \ usedindeterminingappropriatesentences.SeeUnitedStates 2 SentencingCommission,SupplementaryReportontheInitial X SentencingGuidelinesandPolicyStatements1617(1987).#X,XXXnq#< r9Z+&Courier (PCL6)     ($USUS.,    1    _ ` XnXXXԀ Pickyourcircuitfortheparentheticaland accord  therestw/out_parentheticals_. See,e.g.,Figueroav.Rivera,  147F.3d77,81(1stCir.1998)(notingthattheSupremeCourt x has admonishedthelowerfederalcourtstofollowitsdirectly N applicableprecedent,evenifthatprecedentappearsweakenedby $t pronouncementsinitssubsequentdecisions);Perezv.Greiner, J 296F.3d123,125n.4(2dCir.2002)( whereaSupremeCourt   precedentappearstohavebeenreversedbyimplication,lower   courtsshouldcontinuetofollowthecasethatdirectlycontrols, |  andleavetotheSupremeCourttheprerogativeofoverrulingits R   owndecisions)(citationsandinternalquotationmarksand ( x  alterationsomitted);Sierrav.Romaine,347F.3d559,575(3d  N  Cir.2003)( weshouldleavetheoverrulingofSupremeCourt $  precedentstothatCourt,evenifwebelieve,ordivine,thatthe   Courtshould,orwill,overrulethem);Fisherv.King,232F.3d   391,397(4thCir.2000)(theSupremeCourthas reject[ed]the V  propositionthatothercourtsshouldeverconcludethatthe ,|  SupremeCourtsrecentcaseshave,byimplication,overruledan R earlierprecedent);UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez-Montelongo,263 ( F.3d429,434(5thCir.2001)( Itisforthiscourttoapplythe  lawasitexistsandfortheSupremeCourttooverruleits  precedentifitsochooses.);#X,XXXnq#<( 4 <DLX<XnXXX,UnitedStatesv.Talley,275F.3d Z 560,565(6thCir.2001)( [T]heSupremeCourthasrecently 0 remindedusthatlowercourtsshouldnotoverruleitsdecisions, V eveniflateropinionscastdoubtonsuchprecedent.Rather,we , aretoleavetotheCourtwhethertooverruleitsprior  decisions.)(internalcitationomitted);Scheiberv.Dolby  Laboratories,Inc.,293F.3d1014,1018(7thCir.2002)( [W]e ^ havenoauthoritytooverruleaSupremeCourtdecisionnomatter 4 howdubiousitsreasoningstrikesus,orevenhowoutoftouch  Z withtheSupremeCourtscurrentthinkingthedecisionseems); 0 UnitedStatesv.Maynie,257F.3d908,918(8thCir.2001)  ( courtofappealsshouldfollowcontrollingSupremeCourt   precedenteventhoughitmayhavebeencalledintoquestion b ! indirectly);UnitedStatesv.Pacheco-Zepeda,234F.3d411,414 8!" (9thCir.2000)( [S]peculationdoesnotpermitustoignore "^# controllingSupremeCourtauthority.);Conoverv.AetnaUS "4$ HealthCare,Inc.,320F.3d1076,1079n.2(10thCir.2003)( the # % SupremeCourtinstructedustoavoidconcludingitsmorerecent $& caseshave,byimplication,overruledanearlierprecedent) f% ' (citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted);FloridaLeague <&!( ofProflLobbyistsv.Meggs,87F.3d457,462(11thCir.1996) 'b") ( Wearenotatlibertytodisregardbindingcaselawthatisso '8#*  closelyonpointandhasbeenonlyweakened,ratherthandirectly  overruled,bytheSupremeCourt);U.S.AirTourAssnv.F.A.A.,  298F.3d997,1012,n.8(D.C.Cir.2002)( [T]heSupremeCourt \ hasmadeclearthatthelowercourtsdonothavethepowerto 2 maketh[e]determinationthatSupremeCourtdecisionshavebeen X effectivelyoverruledbysubsequentdecisions). $ ($USUS.,    3    _ ` Again,pickyourcite.XnXXXԀ See,e.g.,Leev.C.I.R.,155F.3d  584,587(2dCir.1998)( [O]nepanelofthiscircuitwillnot  overruleanother;panelsaretobeoverruledonlybythecourten  banc);BollmanHatCo.v.Root,112F.3d113,117(3dCir.1997) X ( [A]panelofourcourtcannotoverruleapriorpublished .~ decision.Onlythecourtenbancmaydothis.)(footnoteand  T citationomitted);Boothv.Maryland,327F.3d377,383(4thCir.  * 2003)( [A]panelofthiscircuitcannotoverruleapriorpanel.   Onlytheenbanccourtcandothat.);ShellOffshore,Inc.v.   Director,DeptofLaborOfficeofWorkersCompensation \   Programs,122F.3d312,316(5thCir.1997)( [O]nlyanenbanc 2   courtcanoverruleorchangewhatapreviouspanelhasheld.); X  Cooperv.MRMInvestmentCo.,367F.3d493,507(6thCir.2004) .  ( [O]nlytheCourtsittingenbancmayoverrulepublishedcircuit   precedent,absentaninterveningSupremeCourtdecisionora   changeintheapplicablelaw.);Gipsonv.KASSnacktimeCo.,171 `  F.3d574,576n.3(8thCir.1999)(paneldecisionsareprecedent 6  inthecircuit [u]ntilmodifiedoroverruledbythecourten  \  banc);Murrayv.CableNat.BroadcastingCo.,86F.3d858,860  (9thCir.1996)( [O]nlyapanelsittingenbancmayoverturn  existingNinthCircuitprecedent.);Dubucv.Johnson,314F.3d \ 1205,1209(10thCir.2003)( Onlyanenbancpanelmayoverrule 2 apriorpanelsdecision.);Cargillv.Turpin,120F.3d1366, X 1386(11thCir.1997)( [O]nlytheSupremeCourtorthiscourt . sittingenbanccanjudiciallyoverruleapriorpanel   decision.);NationalMin.Assnv.Fowler,324F.3d752,759   (D.C.Cir.2003)( panelsareboundtofollowcircuitprecedents `  untilenbanccourtorSupremeCourtoverrulesthose 6   precedents);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Chien,266F.3d1,10  \  (1stCir.2001)(apriorpaneldecisionshallnotbedisturbed  2  absenteithertheoccurrenceofacontrollinginterveningevent   (e.g.,aSupremeCourtopiniononthepoint;arulingofthe   circuit,sittingenbanc;orastatutoryoverruling)or,in d  extremelyrarecircumstances,wherenon-controllingbut :  persuasivecaselawsuggestssuchacourse);Brooksv.Walls,279 `  F.3d518,522(7thCir.2002)( Onepanelofthiscourtcannot 6 overruleanotherimplicitly.Overrulingrequiresrecognitionof   thedecisiontobeundoneandcirculationtothefullcourtunder  CircuitRule40(e).). h  , ($USUS.,    7    _ԀXnXXXSeealsoGuidelines1B1.2(provisionclearlydirectedto  courts(notjuries)to [_d]etermine_factsrelevantto  applicationoftheGuidelines);Guidelines1B1.2appl.n.2 x (Guidelinesmanual directsthecourt,onceithasdeterminedthe N applicableguideline...under1B1.2(a)todetermineany $t applicablespecificoffensecharacteristics(underthat J guidelines)andanyotherapplicablesentencingfactorspursuant   totherelevantconductdefinitionin1B1.3.)(emphasis   added);Fed.R._Crim_.Pro.32(_i_)(settingforthprocedurefor |  courttoresolveissuesundertheGuidelinesatsentencing).  ($USUS.,    2    _ ` XnXXXSee,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Casas,356F.3d104,128  (1stCir.2004);UnitedStatesv.Luciano,311F.3d146,153(2d  Cir.2002);UnitedStatesv.Parmelee,319F.3d583,592(3dCir. \ 2003);UnitedStatesv.Cannady,283F.3d641,649&n.7(4th 2 Cir.2002);UnitedStatesv.Floyd,343F.3d363,372(5thCir. X 2003);UnitedStatesv.Tarwater,308F.3d494,517(6thCir. . 2002);UnitedStatesv.Merritt,361F.3d1005,1015(7thCir.   2004);UnitedStatesv.Banks,340F.3d683,68465(8thCir.   2003);UnitedStatesv.Ochao,311F.3d1133,113436(9thCir. `  2002);UnitedStatesv.MendezZamora,296F.3d1013,1020(10th 6   Cir.2002);UnitedStatesv.Ortiz,318F.3d1030,1039(11th  \  Cir.2003);UnitedStatesv._Pettigrew_,346F.3d1139,1147n.18  2  (D.C.Cir.2003).#X,XXXnq# i ($USUS.,    8    _ԀXnXXXBecausejudgesmaystill,postBlakely,findthefactofa  priorconviction,seeBlakely,2004WL1402697,at*4,thecourt  couldstillconstitutionallymakemostofthefactualfindings x necessarytoassignadefendanttoacriminalhistorycategory N underChapter4oftheGuidelines,evenifthosefactualfindings $t increasedthedefendantssentencingrange.*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L   d !USUS.,  _XnXXX zfOY@ 0XXn SAMPLEBRIEF:ADAPTFORYOURCOURT #XnX 0#Ԁ  I. BLAKELYDOESNOTINVALIDATETHEFEDERALSENTENCINGGUIDELINES   n  A.0 ` ThisCourtisBoundbySupremeCourtandCircuitCourt B  PrecedentUpholdingtheGuidelines. & v` (#` (#   InBlakelyv.Washington,2004WL1402697(June24,2004),  0 theSupremeCourtappliedtheruleofApprendiv.NewJersey,530    U.S.466,490(2000),toinvalidateasentencingenhancement, 8  imposedpursuanttostatelaw,thatincreasedthesentencebeyond 4  therangeauthorizedbyWashingtonstatesstatutorysentencing   guidelinesregime.TheCourtexplainedthat,becausethefacts < supportingtheenhancementwere neitheradmittedby[the 8 defendant]norfoundbyajury,thesentenceviolatedtheSixth  Amendmentrighttotrialbyjury.2004WL1402697,at*4. @   Blakelydidnotinvalidatethefederalsentencing < Guidelines,nordiditholdthatitsruleappliestothe  Guidelines.See2004WL142697,at*6n.9( [t]heFederal D Guidelinesarenotbeforeus,andweexpressnoopinionon @  them);seealsoApprendi,530U.S.at497n.21(same).Indeed, !" inApprendiitself,theCourtexpressednoviewontheGuidelines H#$ beyond whatthisCourthasalreadyheld.Ibid.(citingEdwards $D & v.UnitedStates,523U.S.511,515(1998)). x  &!(   WhattheCourthas alreadyheldabouttheGuidelines L(#* thereforecontinuestoprovidethegoverningprincipleforthis )H%, court!andSupremeCourtrulingshaveconsistentlyupheldthe +&. Guidelinesagainstconstitutionalattackandunderscoredtheir P-(0  zf  8,XXdd8    _uniquestatuswithinourconstitutionalscheme.See,e.g.,  Mistrettav.UnitedStates,488U.S.361(1989).Indeed,the \ Courthasfoundthatsolongasasentencedoesnotexceedthe X statutorymaximumsestablishedbyCongressfortheoffenseof   conviction,aGuidelinessentencecan(infact,sometimesmust) `  bebasedonjudgefoundconductnotprovedtoajury,seeEdwards  \  v.UnitedStates,523U.S.511,51415(1998);conductnot   chargedintheindictment,seeWittev.UnitedStates,515U.S. d  389,399401(1995);andconductofwhichadefendantis `  acquittedbutisestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.   SeeUnitedStatesv.Watts,519U.S.148,15657(1997)(per h curiam).Moreover,theCourthasexplicitlyheldthatcourtsare d boundnotonlybytheGuidelines,butbytheirpolicystatements  andcommentaryaswell.Stinsonv.UnitedStates,508U.S.36, l 42(1993). h   Thiscourtisrequiredtofollowtheseprecedents.See  StateOilCo.v.Khan,522U.S.3,20(1997)( itis[theSupreme p  Courts]prerogativealonetooverruleoneofitsprecedents); !l" Agostiniv.Felton,521U.S.203,237(1997)(courtsofappeals "$ mustleaveto thisCourttheprerogativeofoverrulingitsown t$& decisions,evenifsuchadecision appearstorestonreasons  &p!( rejectedinsomeotherlineofdecisions)(quotations,citations '#* omitted).Indeed,everycourtofappealsrecognizesthatitis x)$, obligedtofollowSupremeCourtprecedent,evenwhenthat $+t&. precedentmayappeartobeunderminedbysubsequentSupremeCourt  decisions. #  1      ׀ \ OY      Furthermore,thecourtsofappealshavealsounanimously  heldthatthefederalGuidelinesdonotviolatetheruleof \ Apprendi. #  2      ׀Thesedecisions,too,bindthedistrictcourtsand X theindividualpanelsofthecourtsofappeals.: #  3      ׀  Thiscourt,   thus,maynottakeituponitselftocastasidetheGuidelines  systemandtheintegratedsentencingprocessitmandates. \ 0   B.0` (#(#TheSupremeCourtHasConsistentlyUpheldthe X ConstitutionalityofGuidelinesSentencesBasedon < JudgeFoundFacts.  ` (#` (#     TheSentencingReformActof1984significantlyalteredthe   wayinwhichdistrictcourtssentencepersonsconvictedof 6   federalcrimes.BeforetheAct,Congressdefinedbroad 2  sentencingranges,andthenleftittoindividualjudgestoset   sentenceswithinthoserangesonacasebycasebasis.See :  Mistretta,488U.S.at364(preGuidelines, Congressdelegated 6 almostunfettereddiscretiontothesentencingjudgetodetermine  whatthesentenceshouldbewithinthecustomarilywiderange). > WiththeAct,Congressdelegatedtheauthoritytochannelthat  judicialdiscretiontotheSentencingCommission,an independent \ commissioninthejudicialbranchoftheUnitedStates.28 X U.S.C.991(a);seeMistretta,488U.S.at385.Congresscharged   theCommissionwithdevisingasystemofsentencingrangesfor `  categoriesofoffensesanddefendantsaccordingtovarious  \  specifiedandunspecifiedfactors.See28U.S.C.994(a)(e). #  4      ׀   Inresponse,theCommissionchosetocreateasystemrequiringa d  courttoconsideradefendants realoffense(i.e.,hisactual `  conduct),evenifthatconductisnotpartofthechargedoffense   ofconviction.SeeGuidelinesManualCh.1,Pt.A,intro. h comment.4(a)(2002)(nowincludedasaneditorialnotefollowing d Guidelines1A1.1).TheCommissionalsospecifiedthatsuch  guidelinesdeterminationsweretobemadewithinthestatutory l maximumsestablishedbyCongressintheU.S.Code.See h Guidelines5G1.1;seealsoWitte,515U.S.at40102(noting  thatGuidelineschannelthediscretionofsentencingcourtsto p  takeintoaccountrelatedunchargedmisconductinimposing !l" sentenceuptothestatutorymaximums,inamannercomparableto "$ preGuidelinespractice). t$&   InMistretta,488U.S.at412,theSupremeCourtupheldthe  constitutionalityofboththefederalGuidelinesandthe \ SentencingCommission.Inthefaceofnondelegationand X separationofpowerschallenges,itheldthat Congressneither   delegatedexcessivelegislativepower[totheCommission]nor `  upsettheconstitutionallymandatedbalanceofpowersamongthe  \  coordinateBranchesbyplacingtheCommissionwithinthe   judicialbranch.Id.at38485,412;seealsoid.at412 d  (ConstitutiondoesnotprohibitCongress fromcallinguponthe `  accumulatedwisdomandexperienceoftheJudicialBranchin   creatingpolicyonamatteruniquelywithinthekenofjudges). #  5       h   WiththeoverallconstitutionalityoftheGuidelines d established,theCourtwasthencalledupontoevaluatevarious  oftheGuidelinesrealworldapplications.Repeatedly,it l upheldGuidelinessentencesbasedonjudgefoundfactsneither h submittedtonorconsideredbyajury.Indeed,inWatts,519  U.S.at15354,theCourtupheldanenhancement,underGuidelines p  2D1.1(b)(1),forpossessionofaguninconnectionwithadrug !l" offense,eventhoughthejuryhadacquittedthedefendantofthe "$ firearmschargeunder18U.S.C.924(c).TheCourtnotedthat  Guidelines1B1.3!the relevantconductrule! directs \ sentencingcourtstoconsiderallotherrelatedconduct,whether X ornotitresultedinaconviction.519U.S.at15354;see   alsoGuidelines1B1.3,comment.,backgd( conductthatisnot `  formallychargedorisnotanelementoftheoffenseof  \  convictionmayenterintothedeterminationoftheapplicable   guidelinesentencingrange).Applyingthatprinciple,theCourt d  heldthatthesentencingcourtcouldconsiderthedefendants `  acquittedconduct(thefirearmsuse)indetermininghis   Guidelinessentencingrange(fordrugtrafficking),solongas h theacquittedconductwasprovedbyapreponderanceofthe d evidence.519U.S.at15657;seeid.at154( sentencing  enhancementsdonotpunishadefendantforcrimesofwhichhewas l notconvicted,butratherincreasehissentencebecauseofthe h mannerinwhichhecommittedthecrimeofconviction).    Othercases,too,haveupheldGuidelinessentencesbasedon p  relatedcriminalconductprovedtoajudgeatsentencing,andnot !l" underlyingajurysverdictofguilt.SeeWitte,515U.S.at "$ 399400(judgemayimposehigherGuidelinessentenceondefendant t$& convictedofpossessingmarijuanabasedonjudgesfindingthat  &p!( offenderalsoengagedinunchargedcocaineconspiracy);Edwards, '#* 523U.S.at51415(evenifjuryconvicteddefendantofcocaine x)$, onlyconspiracy,judgemayimposehigherGuidelinessentence $+t&. basedonfindingthatdefendantsconductincludedcrackrelated  activities);UnitedStatesv.Dunnigan,507U.S.87,9596(1993) \ (courtmayimposeGuidelinesenhancementforperjuryattrial X whensentencingdefendantforoffenseofconviction).      Insoruling,theCourtclearlyviewedtheGuidelines `  enhancementsnotas statutorymaximums(requiringprooftoa  \  jurybeyondareasonabledoubt),butasruleschannelingthe   discretionofjudgeswithinthecongressionallysetmaximumsin d  theU.S.Code.Indeed,theCourtexplicitlysaidasmuchin `  Edwards,whichitnotablycitedwithapprovalinApprendi:   0  Ofcourse,petitionersstatutoryandconstitutionalclaims h [thatthecourtmustbaseitsGuidelinessentence > exclusivelyonthecocaineonlyfactsfoundbythejury] d wouldmakeadifferenceifitwerepossibletoargue,say, : thatthesentencesimposedexceededthemaximumthatthe  statutespermitforacocaineonlyconspiracy.Thatis  becauseamaximumsentencesetbystatutetrumpsahigher l sentencesetforthintheGuidelines.B(#(# 2Edwards,523U.S.at515;Apprendi,530U.S.at497n.21;see > alsoWitte,515U.S.at399400(althoughGuidelinesenhancement  forunchargedconductresultedinhigherGuidelinesrangethan F ! otherwisewouldhaveapplied,range stillfallswithinthescope !B# ofthelegislativelyauthorizedpenaltyandisthus #% constitutionallypermissible);Mistretta,488U.S.at396 J% ' (Guidelines donot...establish[]minimumandmaximum &F") penaltiesforcrimes). (#+   TheCourthasthusanalyzedtheGuidelinesaschanneling N*%- judicialdiscretionwithincongressionallysetstatutory +J'/ maximums,notascreatinglowerstatutorymaximumsforthe  offensesdefinedbyCongress.Toupsetthatunderstandingnow! \ andeitherinvalidatetheGuidelinesaltogether,orholdthat X everyofthemyriadupwardadjustments,enhancementsand   departuresintheGuidelinesmustbeprovedtoajurybeyonda `  reasonabledoubt!wouldwreakhavoconthefederalcriminal  \  justicesystem.In2002(themostrecentyearforwhich   statisticsareavailable),64,366federaldefendantswere d  sentencedundertheGuidelines.2002SourceBookofFederal `  SentencingStatistics.Atthismoment,thousandsofcases(at   everystageoftheproceedings,fromindictment,plea h negotiation,trial,sentencingandappeal)couldbeunsettledby d sucharuling.    Thiscourtshouldnotplacethesysteminsuchjeopardyand l turnbacktheclockonyearsofsentencingreform!especially h where,asdiscussedbelow,thisoutcomeisnotmandatedby  Blakely. p    C.0 ` TheCommissionpromulgatedFederalGuidelinesOperate !l" DifferentlyFromWashingtonStatesLegislatively "P# EnactedGuidelines."4$` (#` (#   n= BlakelyinvolvedtwoWashingtonstatestatutes,onebroad $& andonespecific,thatsetforthvariousmaximumpenaltiesfor X&!( criminaloffenses.Thefirstprescribesmaximumsentences (T#* dependingonwhetheracrimeisaClassAfelony(lifemaximum), )%, ClassB(tenyears),orClassC(fiveyears).Wash.Rev.Code \+&. 9A.20.021(1).Thesecondstatutecategorizesindividualcrimes  by seriousnesslevelwhich,alongwithanoffenderscriminal \ historyscore,yieldsa presumptivesentencingrange,whichis X setforthinthestatecodeintheformofasentencinggrid.   SeeWash.Rev.Code9.94A.310(1)(Table1)(nowrevisedand `  codifiedatWash.Rev.Code9.94A.510). Thestatuteauthorizes  \  acourttoimposeasentenceabovethepresumptiverangeifit   finds substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyingan d  exceptionalsentence.Blakely,2002WL1402697,at*2.The `  statuteincludesanillustrative,nonexhaustivelistofpossible   aggravatingfactorsjustifyinganexceptionalsentence.2004WL h 1402697,at*2. d   Blakelypleadedguiltytoseconddegreekidnappinginvolving  domesticviolenceanduseofafirearm,aClassBfelony.The l sentencingcourtdidnotsentencehimtothepresumptiverange h setbythestatutoryguidelines(4953months)forhiscrime,but  imposedan exceptionalsentenceof90monthsbaseduponits p  findingthatBlakelyhadactedwith deliberatecrueltyin !l" committingtheoffense.2004WL1402697,at*34.Applyingthe "$ ruleofApprendi!that otherthanthefactofaprior t$& conviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime  &p!( beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoa '#* jury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt,530U.S.at490! x)$, andrelyingonApprendiandRingv.Arizona,536U.S.584(2002), $+t&. theCourtheldthat thestatutorymaximumforApprendi  purposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthe \ basisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedby X thedefendant.2004WL1402697,at*4.Because deliberate   crueltywasneitherprovedtoajurynoradmittedbyBlakelyin `  hisplea,theCourtruledthattheenhancedsentencewas  \  unconstitutional.Id.at*4,6.     AsinApprendiandRing,thelegislativeschemeinBlakely d  createdtwodistinctstatutorymaximums.InBlakely,onevery `  broadlyclassified(andprovidedbroadmaximumrangesfor)   offensesasA,B,orCfelonies,andtheotherprovidedcrimeby h crimeguidelinesranges,fromwhichajudgecoulddepartupward d basedonhisorherownfindingsofaggravatingfactors.See  2004WL1402697,at*2. l   Thatisnothowthefederalsystemoperates.Congresshas h onlycreatedonesetofstatutorymaximumsforfederalcrimes.  TheGuidelinesoperatewithinthosemaximums,seeGuidelines p  5G1.1,andsetforthahostoffactors(thecurrentManualruns !l" some491pages)thatcourtsaretoconsider,bothinaggravation "$ andmitigation,inindividualizingaparticularsentence.These t$& factorscorrespondtothosethatjudgeshavealwaystakeninto  &p!( account!suchasthemannerinwhichacrimewascommitted,the '#* natureofthevictim,thedefendantsroleintheoffense, x)$, whetherheobstructedjusticeattrial,andwhetherheaccepted $+t&. responsibilityforhisactionsinfashioningsentences.  Watts,519U.S.at152. #  6      ׀AsdiscussedaboveandastheSupreme \ Courthasindicated,thefederalGuidelineswereneverintended X tooperateonthesamefootingasthestatutorymaximums.   Indeed,thatveryassumptionsitsattheheartoftheGuidelines: `   theydonotbindorregulatetheprimaryconductofthepublic  \  or...establish[]minimumandmaximumpenaltiesforevery   crime.Theydonomorethanfetterthediscretionofsentencing d  judgestodowhattheyhavedoneforgenerations!impose `  sentenceswithinthebroadlimitsestablishedbyCongress.   Mistretta,488U.S.at396. h   Further,asMistrettamadeclear,theGuidelinesandthe d SentencingCommissionthatpromulgatesthemareconstitutionally  unique.TheCommissionisnotalegislativebodybutan l  independentcommissioninthejudicialbranchoftheUnited h States.28U.S.C.991(a).Informulatingthefederal  Guidelines, theCommissionenjoyssignificantdiscretion. p  Mistretta,488U.S.at657.TheGuidelinesarenotstatutesbut !l" sentencingrules!bindingonsentencingcourtsbystatute,see "$ Mistretta,488U.S.at367;Stinson,508U.S.at42(citing18 t$& U.S.C.3553(b))!butneverthelesstheuniqueproductofa  specialdelegationofauthority. p  \   MistrettarecognizedthatthesubstanceofCongress X delegationtotheCommissionwasessentiallynonlegislativein   character.LikeCongressdelegationofrulemakingauthorityto `  thejudicialbranchtoprescriberulesofprocedureandevidence,  \  see,e.g.,28U.S.C.2072,thedelegationtotheCommissionto   makesentencingrules simplyleaveswiththeJudiciarywhatlong d  hasbelongedtoit.488U.S.at396.Or,putanotherway: `  0  Priortothe[SentencingReform]Act,theJudicialBranch,   asanaggregate,decidedpreciselythequestionsassignedto  theCommission:whatsentenceisappropriatetowhat h criminalconductunderwhatcircumstances.Itwasthe > everydaybusinessofjudges...toevaluateandweighthe d variousaimsofsentencingandtoapplythoseaimstothe : individualcasesthatcamebeforethem.TheSentencing  Commissiondoesnomorethanthis,albeitbasicallythrough  themethodologyofsentencingguidelines,ratherthan l entirelyindividualizedsentencingdeterminations.B(#(# Y488U.S.at395;id.at391( Commissionsfunctions...are > clearlyattendanttoacentralelementofthehistorically  acknowledgedmissionoftheJudicialBranch);seealsoUnited F ! Statesv.Kinter,235F.3d192,201(4thCir.2000)( the !B# Commissionsactofestablishingsentencingrangesinthe #% Guidelinesiscategoricallydifferentfromthelegislativeactof J% ' settingamaximumpenaltyinasubstantivecriminalstatute). &F")   Blakely,ofcourse,didnotrestonthefactthatthe (#+ Washingtonguidelinesschemewaslegislativelyenacted.Nor, N*%- however,diditsaythatthesourceofthe statutorymaximum +J'/ (whethercongressionalstatuteorcommissionguideline)for  Apprendipurposesisimmaterial.ImposingApprendis \ requirementsonlywhenthelegislaturehasmadeadefendants X exposuretoincreasedpunishmentcontingentonfindingsoffact   thatthelegislatureitselfspecifiesvindicatesApprendis `  animatingconstitutionalvalues.TheSixthAmendmentrightto  \  trialbyjury,andthedueprocessrighttoinsistonrigorous   prooftoestablishguiltofanoffense,arefullyprotectedwhen d  theremustbeajuryfindingbeyondareasonabledoubtonthe `  factsthatestablishthelegislativelyprescribedmaximum   punishmenttowhichadefendantisexposed.Democratically h enactedstatutesprovideoneofthemostbasiccontractsbetween d acitizenandhisorhergovernment.Farmorethanthe  intricate,extensive,andmanylayereddeterminationsinthe l Guidelinesmanual,theU.S.CodetellsthepeopleoftheUnited h Stateswhatisandisnotexpectedofthem,andwarnsthemofthe  ultimateconsequencesshouldtheyrefusetofollowtherules.As p  JusticeScaliasaidinApprendi: !l" 0  Ithinkitnotunfairtotellaprospectivefelonthatifhe "$ commitshiscontemplatedcrimeheisexposinghimselftoa #% jailsentenceof30years!andthatif,uponconviction, t$& hegetsanythinglessthanthathemaythankthemercyofa J% ' tenderheartedjudge...Willtherebedisparities?Of  &p!( course.Butthecriminalwillnevergetmorepunishment &F") thanhebargainedforwhenhedidthecrime,andhisguilt '#* ofthecrime(andhencethelengthofthesentencetowhich (#+ heisexposed)willbedeterminedbeyondareasonabledoubt x)$, bytheunanimousvoteof12ofhisfellowcitizens.N*%-(#(# Gf530U.S.at498(Scalia,J.,concurring)(emphasisinoriginal); +J'/ seealsoHarrisv.UnitedStates,536U.S.545,562(2002)  ( [s]incesentencingrangescameintouse,defendantshavenot \ beenabletopredictfromthefaceoftheindictmentprecisely X whattheirsentencewillbe;thechargedfactshavesimplymade   themawareoftheheaviestpunishmenttheyfaceifconvicted. `  Judges,inturn,havealwaysconsideredunchargedaggravating  \  circumstancesthat,whileincreasingthedefendantspunishment,   havenotswelledthepenaltyabovewhatthelawhasprovidedfor d  theactscharged.)(pluralityopinion)(citations,internal `  quotationmarksomitted).     Insum,theSupremeCourtdecisionsbeforeBlakelyuniformly h upheldtheGuidelinessystemaswritten:atightlyintegrated d systemofsentencingrulesforjudgestoapplybasedontheir  findingsoffact.Blakelyexplicitlydeclinedtoexpressaview l ontheFederalSentencingGuidelines.Thiscourtaccordingly h shouldcontinuetoadheretothelawasitstands.   XnXXXnII.0  #XnXXXn0o#IFTHECOURTHOLDSTHATBLAKELYDOESPRECLUDEAPPLICATIONOF p  THEGUIDELINESBASEDONJUDGEMADEFACTUALFINDINGSINA T ! GIVENCASE,THENTHESENTENCINGCOURTINTHATCASESHOULD 8!" IMPOSESENTENCEWITHINTHESTATUTORYMAXIMUMANDMINIMUM, "l# WITHDUEREGARDTOTHESENTENCESPRESCRIBEDBYTHE #P$ GUIDELINESFORSIMILAROFFENSESANDOFFENDERS#4%(#(#  Oo  A.0 ` GuidelinesEnhancementsAndTheProceduresForApplying % ' ThemAreNotSeverableFromTheGuidelinesAsAWhole&!(` (#` (#  q  Ifthecourtdisagreeswiththegovernmentsargumentand J(#* holdsthatBlakelyappliestotheGuidelines,thenthecourtmust )F%, decidehowsentencingistobeconducted.TheGuidelinescontain +&. many enhancementprovisions--i.e.,provisionsthatprovide  forahigheroffenselevelorthatauthorizeanupwarddeparture \ fromadefendant'sGuidelinessentencingrangebasedon X particularfactualfindings.IfBlakelyappliestothe   Guidelines,andabsentawaiverbythedefendant,those `  enhancementprovisions(exceptforprovisionsbasedonprior  \  convictions,seeAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,523U.S.224   (1998)),generallycouldbeappliedinagivencaseonlyif, d  contrarytothecurrentsystemofjudgemadefindings,the `  necessaryfactshavebeenfoundbyajurybeyondareasonable   doubt.Provisionsthatreduceadefendantssentencingrangeor h authorizeadownwarddeparture,however,couldstillbeapplied, d asintended,byacourtatsentencingbasedonfindingsbya  preponderanceoftheevidence.Harrisv.UnitedStates,536U.S. l 545(2002);seealsoBlakely,2004WL1402697,at*5(ruledoes h notapplytocasesinvolving sentencingscheme[s]thatimposeda  statutoryminimumifajudgefoundaparticularfact);McMillan p  v.Pennsylvania,477U.S.79(1986). !l"   Arequirementthatenhancing--butnotreducing--facts "$ havetobesubmittedtothejuryandprovenbeyondareasonable t$& doubtwoulddistorttheoperationofthesentencingsystemina  &p!( mannerthatwouldnothavebeenintendedbyCongressorthe '#* SentencingCommission.Accordingly,ratherthanattemptingto x)$, applytheGuidelineswithaBlakelyoverlayofjuryfactfinding, $+t&. acourtshouldsimplyconcludethatthepartsoftheGuidelines  systemthatareunconstitutional(findingofsentenceenhancing \ factsbythejudge)areinseverablefromtheGuidelinesasa X whole.Theresultisthat,inanycaseinwhichBlakely   precludesjudicialfactfindingundertheGuidelines,the `  Guidelinesasawholewouldbeinvalidatedasabindingsetof  \  rulesgoverningsentencesthatmustbeimposed.     1.Whenacourtfindssomepartsofastatutoryscheme d  unconstitutional,thecourtmustinquireintotheseverabilityof `  theremainingprovisions.Thecourtofcourse shouldrefrain   frominvalidatingmoreofthestatutethannecessary.Alaska h Airlines,Inc.v.Brock,480U.S.678,684(1987).Accordingly, d  [w]heneveranactofCongresscontainsunobjectionable  provisionsseparablefromthosefoundtobeunconstitutional,it l isthedutyofth[e]courttosodeclare,andtomaintaintheact h insofarasitisvalid.AlaskaAirlines,480U.S.at684.  Butwheretheremainingprovisionsarenotseverable,theytoo p  arerenderedinvalidbytheholdingofunconstitutionality. !l"   Thequestionwhethertheunconstitutionalprovisionsare "$ severableturnsonanassessmentofwhetherCongresswouldhave t$& enactedtheprovisionsthatremainconstitutionalabsentthe  &p!( others.SeeMinnesotav.MilleLacsBandofChippewaIndians, '#* 526U.S.172,191(1999)( Theinquiryintowhetherastatuteis x)$, severableisessentiallyaninquiryintolegislativeintent.). $+t&. AstheSupremeCourthasstatedtherule, [u]nlessitisevident  thattheLegislaturewouldnothaveenactedthoseprovisions \ whicharewithinitspower,independentofthatwhichisnot,the X invalidpartmaybedroppedifwhatisleftisfullyoperativeas   law.Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1,108(1976)(quotingChamplin `  RefiningCo.v.CorporationCommn,286U.S.210,234(1932));  \  INSv.Chadha,462U.S.919,932,934(1983)(same;notingthat   whatremainsafterseveranceofunconstitutionallegislativeveto d  is fullyoperativeandworkableadministrativemachineryand `  thereforeisseverable).     Underthoseprinciples,the relevantinquiryinevaluating h severabilityiswhetherthestatutewillfunctioninamanner d consistentwiththeintentofCongressafterthe  unconstitutionalprovisionshavebeensevered.AlaskaAirlines, l 480U.S.at685.Ifthestatutewillnotfunctioninamanner h Congressintended,thentheentirestatutemustbeeliminated,  andthebasicpolicychoicesindesigninganew,constitutional p  schemeleftuptoCongress.Thecourthasnoauthorityto !l"  rewrite[the]statuteandgiveitaneffectaltogether "$ differentfromwhatCongressenacted.RailroadRetirementBd. t$& v.AltonR.Co.,295U.S.330,362(1935).  &p!(   2.WhenCongressenactedtheSentencingReformAct,there '#* isnodoubtthatthesystemCongresshadinmindwasonebasedon x)$, determinationsbycourts,notjuries,offactsnecessaryfor $+t&. sentencing.AndthereisnodoubtthattheCommissionstructured  theGuidelinesforuseinsuchasystem.Eliminatingtheparts \ oftheGuidelinesschemethatwouldbeunconstitutionalif X BlakelyappliestotheGuidelineswouldleavearemainderthatis   notseverable--i.e.,thatcouldnotoperateinthemannerthat `  Congressintended.Forthatreason,inanycaseinwhich  \  Blakelytypeprocedureswouldhavetobeappliedtodetermining   factsnecessaryforGuidelinesenhancements,theGuidelinesasa d  wholewouldnolongerbeapplicableasbindingauthority. `    a.Applicationbyjudges.CongressintendedtheGuidelines   tobeappliedbyjudgesatsentencing,notbyjuries.Thatis h explicitinCongresssbasiccommandtotheSentencingCommission d topromulgateasetofGuidelines.28U.S.C.994(a)(1)( The  Commission...shallpromulgateanddistributetoallcourts l Ѐ...guidelines...foruseofasentencingcourtin h determiningthesentencetobeimposedinacriminalcase.)  (emphasisadded).ThoseGuidelinestothesentencingcourtshall p   take...intoaccount,insofarasrelevant, the !l" circumstancesunderwhichtheoffensewascommittedwhich "$ mitigateoraggravatetheseriousnessoftheoffenseand the t$& natureanddegreeoftheharmcausedbytheoffense,28U.S.C.  &p!( 994(c)(2)and(3),andthedefendants roleintheoffense,28 '#* U.S.C.994(d)(9).Congressaccordinglyspecifiedthatthe x)$,  sentencingcourt--notthejury--shallmakethefactual $+t&. determinationsonthosefactors.    TheprovisionsforappealsimilarlyestablishCongresss \ intentthatcourts--notjuries--shouldmakethefactual X determinationsnecessarytoapplytheGuidelines.Under18   U.S.C.3742(d),courtsofappeals shallgivedueregardtothe `  opportunityofthedistrictcourttojudgethecredibilityofthe  \  witnesses,andshallacceptthefindingsoffactofthedistrict   courtunlesstheyareclearlyerroneousand...shallgivedue d  deferencetothedistrictcourtsapplicationoftheguidelines `  tothefacts(emphasisadded).Moreover,Congressprovidedfor   courtsonappealtodetermine whetherthesentence...was h imposedinviolationoflawor wasimposedasaresultofan d incorrectapplicationofthesentencingguidelines,18U.S.C.  3742(c);thosestandardsareobviouslydirectedatsentencing l courts,andthestatutemakesnoprovisionforreviewofjury h verdicts.Similarly,Congressprovidedforequalrightsof  appealforthegovernmentandthedefendant,18U.S.C.3742(a) p  and(b),althoughgovernmentappealsofjuryfactualfindingsat !l" acriminaltrialareordinarilyimpossibleundertheDouble "$ JeopardyClause.UnitedStatesv.MartinLinenSupplyCo.,430 t$& U.S.564(1977).SeealsoComprehensiveCrimeControlActof  &p!( 1983,Sen.Rep.No.98225,at65(projectedguidelines are '#* designedtostructurejudicialsentencingdiscretion)(emphasis x)$, added);id.at155(notingimportanceofappellatereview,which $+t&. is crucialtothefunctioningofthesentencingguidelines). #  7      ׀    b.Preponderanceoftheevidence.UndertheGuidelines, \ sentencingdeterminationsaremadebyjudgesbyapreponderance X oftheevidence;thereasonabledoubtstandardapplicabletojury   findingsisentirelyabsent.AstheCommissionexplained, use `  ofapreponderanceoftheevidencestandardisappropriateto  \  meetdueprocessrequirementsandpolicyconcernsinresolving   disputesregardingapplicationoftheguidelinestothefactsof d  acase.Guidelines6A1.3comment.SeealsoUnitedStatesv. `  Watts,519U.S.148,155(1997)(percuriam)(noting"the   significanceofthedifferentstandardsofproofthatgovernat h trialandsentencing"undertheGuidelines). d   c.Evidence.Likeanysentencingdetermination,  determinationsonGuidelinesenhancementswereintendedtobe l madebythecourtbasedonevidencethatmaynotbeadmissible h beforeajuryunderordinaryrulesofevidence.See18U.S.C.  3661( Nolimitationshallbeplacedontheinformation p  concerningthebackground,character,andconductofaperson !l" convictedofanoffensewhichacourtoftheUnitedStatesmay  receiveandconsiderforthepurposeofimposinganappropriate \ sentence.);SentencingGuidelines6A1.3(sentencingcourtin X resolvingdisputedissues mayconsiderrelevantinformation   withoutregardtoitsadmissibilityundertherulesofevidence `  applicableattrial,providedthattheinformationhassufficient  \  indiciaofreliabilitytosupportitsprobableaccuracy);Fed.   R.Evid.1101(d)(3)(FederalRulesofEvidencenotapplicablein d  sentencingproceedings). `    3.AsystemunderwhichGuidelinesenhancements(butnot   reductions)hadtobesubmittedtoajuryfordetermination h beyondareasonabledoubtwouldcontravenetheclearintentof d CongressandtheSentencingCommissiononeachoftheabove  points.Tobesure,asentencingsystemthatincorporatedjury l findingsonsomefactualissueswithjudicialfindingsonothers h couldbecreated.Butitisnot withintheprovinceofthe  courtstofashionaremedy,UnitedStatesv.Jackson,390U.S. p  570,579(1968),thatwoulddepartsodramaticallyfrom !l" Congresssintent(andthatoftheSentencingCommission)inthe "$ unifiedSentencingGuidelinesaspromulgated.Although t$&  [s]tatutesshouldbeconstruedtoavoidconstitutional  &p!( questions,this interpretativecanonisnotalicenseforthe '#* judiciarytorewritelanguageenactedbythelegislature. x)$, UnitedStatesv.Albertini,472U.S.675,680(1985).Todoso, $+t&.  whilepurportingtobeanexerciseinjudicialrestraint,would  trenchuponthelegislativepowersvestedinCongressbyArt.I, \ 1oftheConstitution.Ibid.Asthedistrictcourtrecently X concludedinUnitedStatesv.Croxford,No.2:02CR00302PGC,   2004WL1462111at*10(D.UtahJune29,2004)(Cassell,J,), `  addingajuryoverlaytoapplicationofSentencingGuidelines  \  would effectivelyrequire[]thecourtstoredraftthesentencing   statutesandimplementingGuidelines. d    a.First,therehasneverbeenanydeterminationby `  Congress,theSentencingCommission,oranyotherbodythatthe   sentencesthatresultedfromsuchapatchworksystemwouldbethe h justandappropriatesentencesthatsatisfiedthegoalsof d sentencingassetforthbyCongress.Congresssetforthanumber  ofgoalsintheSentencingReformAct.Itprovidedthat [t]he l purposesoftheUnitedStatesSentencingCommissionareto... h establishsentencingpoliciesandpracticesfortheFederal  criminaljusticesystemthat...assurethemeetingofthe p  purposesofsentencingassetforthinsection3553(a)(2)of !l" title18,UnitedStatesCode,to providecertaintyandfairness "$ inmeetingthepurposesofsentencing[and]avoidingunwarranted t$& sentencingdisparitiesandto reflect...advancementin  &p!( knowledgeofhumanbehaviorasitrelatestothecriminaljustice '#* process.28U.S.C.991(b);see18U.S.C.3553(b). x)$,   TheSentencingCommissiondesignedtheGuidelines,including $+t&. thesentencingranges,toprovideforsentencesthatsatisfied  thosegoalswhentheGuidelineswereappliedbyjudgesunderthe \ existingsystem.NeitherCongressnortheCommissionhasever X madeanydeterminationthatthesentencesthatresultedfrom   applyingenhancements(butnotreductions)onlyiftheywere `  firstproventoajurybeyondareasonabledoubtwouldbejustor  \  appropriatesentencesforthecrimesatissue.Theymightbetoo   low(becausesomeenhancementssimplycouldnotasapractical d  matterbeproventoajury,becausethebeyondareasonabledoubt `  standardistoohigh,orforotherreasons)ortheymightbetoo   high(becausepresumablyareviewingcourtcouldnotoverturna h juryverdictontheapplicabilityofanenhancingfactwiththe d sameeasethatitcouldoverturnajudgesfindingonthatfact).  But,eitherway,thereisnoreasontobelievethatapplyingthe l Guidelinesinthiswaywouldresultinsentencesthatthe h Commission(orCongress)believedwereappropriate.See  SentencingGuidelines1B1.11( TheGuidelinesManualineffect p  onaparticulardateshallbeappliedinitsentirety.). !l"   b.Second,amongthemostimportantgoalsoftheSentencing "$ ReformActwas theneedtoavoidunwarrantedsentence t$& disparitiesamongdefendantswithsimilarrecordswhohavebeen  &p!( foundguiltyofsimilarconduct.18U.S.C.3553(a)(6). '#* Relatedly,theGuidelinesthemselvesembodyasystemunderwhich x)$, defendantsarepunishedbasedinlargemeasureontherealfacts $+t&. ofthecase,notmerelytheoffensethattheprosecutorhas  charged.IftheGuidelinesareappliedwithaBlakelyoverlay \ requiringsubmissionofenhancing(butnotother)factstothe X jury,thenthosefeaturesofthesystemcannotberealized.It   wouldlikelybeimpossible,asapracticalmatter,tochargeand `  provetoajurybeyondareasonabledoubtallenhancingfactors  \  inallcases.Theresultwouldbemuchgreaterdisparityamong   defendantswhosecriminalconductwasinfactquitesimilar. d  Moreover,theresultwouldbetochangetheGuidelinesintended `  creationofasystemofrelianceinpartonthedefendantsreal   offenseintoasysteminwhichthecourtisprecludedinlarge h part(astoenhancingfactors,atleast)fromrelyingonthe d defendantsrealoffenseandwouldhavetorelyonthecharged  offenseinstead. l   c.Inshort,theschemethatwouldresultfromtryingto h superimposethejurysystemonenhancements(butnotreductions)  undertheGuidelineswouldputinplaceaschemethatisso p  differentfromwhatCongressenacted(andtheSentencing !l" Commissionthoughtitwaspromulgating)thatitwouldinessence "$ bejudiciallawmaking,noteffectuationofcongressionalintent. t$& Inthosecircumstances,theproperremedyistopermitCongress  &p!( tomakethepolicychoicesnecessarytoputintoplacea '#* constitutionalsentencingsystem. x)$, Ѐ  4.Thepracticaldifficultieswithasysteminwhich $+t&. enhancements(butnotreductions)undertheGuidelinescouldbe  appliedonlybasedonjuryfindingsbeyondareasonabledoubt \ wouldbesevere,andtheydemonstratethatneitherCongressnor X theSentencingCommissionwouldhaveenactedtheresultingsystem   orintendedthatitshouldbeapplied. `    a.ComplexityofsubmittingGuidelinesenhancementstothe  \  jury.BecausethefactorsthatgointoaGuidelinessentence   wereintendedtobeappliedbyjudges,notjuries,theyarenot d  wellsuitedtosubmissiontojuries.Theresultofattemptingto `  submitthemtojuriescouldbeextraordinarycomplexity,followed   bylengthyandextensiveappellateproceedingstodetermine h whetherthejuryhadbeencorrectlyinstructed. d   Typically,jurieshavetomakeafewfactualdeterminations  onthelimitednumberofelementsofanoffenseinorderto l determinewhetheradefendantisguilty.Thoseelementshave h usuallybeenrefinedthroughyearsofjudicialdecisions,andthe  instructionsgiventojurieshavebecomestandardized.The p  suddenadditionofnumerousGuidelinesenhancementstothelist !l" offactsthatjuriesmustdecidecoulddramaticallycomplicate "$ thetaskofinstructingjuriesandobtainingvalidverdicts.As t$& JudgeCassellrecentlyexplainedinCroxford, thelistof  &p!( findingscontemplatedbytheGuidelinesisextensiveandnuanced, '#* modifiedandinterpretedregularlyinnumerouscourtopinions, x)$, creatingataskmuchbettersuitedtojudgesthantojuries. $+t&. 2004WL1462111,at*10.Abankrobberycase,forexample,  couldrequire \ 0  ajurytodeterminefactorsregardingthenatureofthe X offense[underGuidelines2B3.1]suchas(1)thenatureof . theinstitutionrobbed;(2)thepresenceof,brandishingof,   orotheruseof,afirearm;(3)themakingofadeath   threat;(4)thepresenceofordinary,serious,orpermanent `  orlifethreateningbodilyinjury;(5)anyabduction;(6) 6   anyphysicalrestraint;(7)thetakingofafirearm;(8)the  \  takingofdrugs;and(9)thevalueofpropertytaken;and  2  furtherfactors[underChapter3BoftheGuidelines]   regardingthedefendantsroleintheoffensesuchas(10)   aggravatingrole;(11)mitigatingrole;(12)abuseofa d  positionoftrust;(13)useofaspecialskill;and(14)use :  ofaminor;andfurtherfactors[underChapter3Aofthe `  Guidelines]regardingthevictimsuchas(15)hatecrime 6 motivation;(16)vulnerablevictim;(17)officialvictim;   (18)terroristicmotivation;andfurtherfactorsconcerning  (19)obstructionofjustice[under3C1.1];and(20) h acceptanceofresponsibility[under3E1.1]--notto > mentionanotherdozenorsogroundsfordepartingupwardor d downwardfromthegeneralguidelinescalculations.:(#(# Croxford,2004WL1462111,at*17.Thejurywouldhavetobe  instructedcorrectlyoneachofthesefactors,andthejurys B verdictwouldpresumablybesubjecttoreversalonappealifthe > instructionswereincorrect.SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Medas,  No.03CR1048(E.D.N.Y.July1,2004). F !   b.DifficultorimpossibleapplicationofsomeGuidelines !B# provisions.Manyprovisionsofgreatimportanceunderthe #% Guidelinessimplycouldnotbeeffectivelyimplementedif J% ' enhancingfactorshadtobechargedinanindictmentand &F") submittedtothejury. (#+   Obstructionofjustice.Theobstructionofjustice N*%- enhancement,underGuidelines3C1.1,isfrequentlyappliedwhen +J'/ adefendanttestifiesfalselyattrial.Yetatthetimeof  indictmentfortheoffense,thegovernmentwillnotknowwhether \ thedefendantwilltestifyfalselyorcommitotherobstructive X acts,anditwillthereforelikelybeimpossibletoindictthe   defendantonthefactsnecessaryforthisenhancementorsubmit `  theissueofobstructiontothejury.  \    Latediscoveredfactors.Therearemanyotherenhancing   factsinindividualcasesthatthegovernmentlearnsofonlyat d  orneartrialorwhenapresentencereportisprepared.Those `  factstoowouldapparentlyhavetobeomittedfromthesentencing   calculation,becausetheycouldnotbeincludedintheindictment h andthuscouldlikelynotbesubmittedtothejury. d   Guidelinesversion.UnderGuidelines1B1.11, [t]hecourt  shallusetheGuidelinesManualineffectonthedatethatthe l defendantissentenced.Thatprovisioncouldnotbeputinto h effectiftheGuidelinesprovisionatissuehaschangedbetween  thetimeofjurydeliberationsandthetimeofsentencing.The p  jurywouldhavebeeninstructedontheGuidelinesversionin !l" effectatthattime,notatthetimeofsentencing. "$   Relevantconduct.Anotherveryseriousproblemwouldarise t$& undertheverycomplex relevantconductrulesunderGuidelines  &p!( 1B1.3.TheGuidelinesprovidethatbaseoffenseleveland '#* offensecharacteristicsshouldbedeterminednotonlyonthe x)$, basisoftheoffenseofconviction,butalsoonthebasisofall $+t&. ofthedefendants relevantconduct.Thatincludes,inter  alia,actsundertakenbyothersthatare aided,abetted, \ counseled,commanded,induced,procuredorwillfullycausedby X thedefendantand,inthecaseofconspiracyoffenses, all   reasonablyforeseeableactsandomissionsofothersin `  furtheranceofthejointlyundertakencriminalactivity.  \  Guidelines1B1.3(a)(1).Asidefromthedifficultyof   instructingajuryonthequitecomplexissuesarisingin d  applyingthesedefinitions,seeGuidelines1B1.3comment. `  (eightpagecommentaryonrelevantconductrules),requiringjury   determinationsonrelevantconductcouldtakeacriminaltrial h intoareasfarafieldfromthecorequestionthatissuitablefor d juryresolution--whetherthedefendantcommittedtheparticular  crimewithwhichhewascharged. l   Upwarddepartures.Upwarddeparturesthatarenotbasedon h specificGuidelinesprovisionsprovideanotherexample.Such  departuresarepermissiblebasedon anaggravating... p  circumstanceofakind,ortoadegree,notadequatelytakeninto !l" considerationbytheSentencingCommissioninformulatingthe "$ guidelinesthatshouldresultinasentencedifferentfromthat t$& described[intheGuidelines].18U.S.C.3553(b);see  &p!( Guidelines5K2.0.Itisdifficulttoseehowajurycouldbe '#* instructedtomakeafindingaboutwhethersuchacircumstance x)$, existed,andanyinstructionthatcouldbeenvisionedwouldface $+t&. averysubstantialobjectionthatitistoovaguetosatisfyDue  Processstandards. \   Groupingrules.UnderChapter3DoftheGuidelines,courts X areto groupsimilarcountsandthensentencethedefendant   accordingtotheoffenselevelapplicabletoeachresultinggroup `  --aprocessthatmayresultinahigheroffenselevelbasedon  \  thedecisionwhetherornottogroupcertaincounts.See   Guidelines3D1.3and3D1.4.Butthedecisionwhethertogroup d  countsdependsinpartonverycomplexfactualdeterminations, `  whichwereclearlynotdesignedforsubmissiontoajury.See,   e.g.,Guidelines3D1.2(a)(groupwhencounts involvethesame h victimandthesameactortransaction),3D1.2((b)(groupwhen d counts involvethesamevictimandtwoormoreactsor  transactionsconnectedbyacommoncriminalobjectiveor l constitutingpartofacommonschemeorplan);Guidelines h 3D1.2comment.(explanationofgroupingrules).Inaddition,  thedecisionwhethertogroupcountsmayincreasethetotal p  offenselevel(andthusthetotalsentence).Thus,itmaybe !l" that,ifBlakelyappliestotheGuidelines,grouping(ornot "$ grouping)couldbeappliedonlywithappropriatejury t$& instructionsandsubmissionofthefactualissuestothejury.  &p!( Thoseinstructionscouldbeexceptionallydifficultforthecourt '#* toformulateandforthejurytofollow. x)$,   c.Absurdresults.AnattempttoapplytheGuidelines $+t&. subjecttoBlakelywouldalsoleadtoabsurdresultsinmany  cases,withsentencingcourtsboundtoimposesentencesthatare \ fartooshortbyanyreasonablestandard.Thatisnotmerely X becausesentencingdecisionsgenerallyhaveneverbeenrequired   tobemadeunderthebeyondareasonabledoubtstandardand `  becauserequiringsuchproofoffactsthatenhance--butnot  \  thosethatreduce--thedefendantssentencewouldinevitably   skewtheresult.Inaddition,thecourtinmanycasesalready d  tried(ortowhichthedefendanthasalreadypleadedguilty) `  wouldberequiredtoimposeanabsurdlylowsentencebecauseof   thestructureoftheGuidelinesprovisionsthemselves. h   Agoodexamplewouldbethesentencesthatwouldresultfor d thoseconvictedoffraudandawaitingsentence.Underthe  Guidelines,convictionoffraudresultsinabaseoffenselevel l of6or7underGuidelines2B1.1(a).Thattranslatesintoa h sentencingrangeof06monthsimprisonment(slightlyhigherfor  thosewithmultiplepriorconvictions).Theenhancementsfor p  amountoflossunderSection2B1.1(b)(1),however,canaddupto !l" 30levelstothedefendantsoffenselevel,andmanyother "$ enhancementsunderSection2B1.1mayfurtherincreasesentence. t$& Mostofthoseenhancements,however,wouldnotordinarilyhave  &p!( beenchargedintheindictmentorfoundbythejury,andthey '#* accordinglywouldbeunavailableatsentencingiftheGuidelines x)$, wereappliedwiththeBlakelyoverlayrequiringajuryverdicton $+t&. enhancingfactors.Accordingly,mostdefendantswhocommitfraud  --evenmultimilliondollarfraudswithlargenumbersofvictims \ andseriousconsequencesforsociety--wouldlikelybelimited X tosentencesoflittleornojailtimeiftheGuidelinescouldbe   appliedonlywithBlakelytypeproceduresforenhancingfactors. `  SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Shamblin,Cr.No.2:0300217,2004WL  \  1468561,at*10(S.D.W.Va.June30,2004)(reductionindrug   casefrom240monthsimprisonmentto almostcertainly d  inadequate12monthsentenceunderBlakely). `    ThatabsurdresulttoodemonstratesthattheGuidelines   wouldnot functioninamannerconsistentwiththeintentof h CongressifacourtattemptedtoapplythemwiththeBlakely d overlay.AlaskaAirlines,480U.S.at685.Accordingly,if  BlakelyappliestotheGuidelinesinagivencase,theprovisions l ofthecurrentsentencingsystemthatwouldbeunconstitutional h arenotseverablefromtheremainderoftheGuidelines.    B.0 ` TheGuidelinesRemainFullyApplicableInCasesIn p  WhichBlakelyProceduresAreNotNecessaryT !` (#` (#    Forthereasonsgivenabove,theGuidelinesasawholeare "^# notseverablefromtheprocedures--factualdeterminationsby # % thejudge,notthejury--thatCongressandtheSentencing f% ' Commissionintendedtobeusedinapplyingthem.Accordingly,in 'b") anycaseinwhichtheGuidelineswouldrequireanupward ($+ enhancementofthedefendantssentencingrangewithoutajury j*%- determination,theGuidelinesasawholecouldnot ,f'/ constitutionallybeappliedasmandatorysentencingrules.See  Croxford,2004WL1462111,at*11.Ontheotherhand,incases \ inwhichtheGuidelinescouldconstitutionallybeappliedas X writtenwithoutsubmittinganyenhancingfactorstothejury,the   Guidelinesremainbindingonsentencingcourts. `    IfitappliestotheGuidelines,Blakelygovernsonlya  \  subsetofthefactualdeterminationsthathavetobemadeat   sentencing--thosefacts(otherthanthefactofaprior d  conviction)thatarenecessaryforincreasesinthedefendants `  sentencingrangeabovewhatwouldhavebeenapplicablebasedon   thejurysfactualfindingsalone. #  8      ׀Incasesinwhichthecourt h determines,basedonatraditionalapplicationoftheGuidelines, d thatnosuchenhancementsareapplicable,itisentirely  consistentwiththeConstitutionfortheGuidelinestobeapplied l aswrittenandintended.Accordingly,under18U.S.C.3553(b), h courtswouldremainboundinsuchcasestosentencethedefendant  inaccordancewiththeGuidelines. p    Somesuchcaseswillbethoseinwhichthejurysverdict !l" establishesthatthedefendantisguiltyofanoffenseandthe "$ courtfinds(basedonapreponderanceoftheevidence)thatthere t$& arenoenhancementsapplicableundertheparticularfactsofthe  case.Insuchcases,nothingstandsinthewayofthestatutory \ directivethatcourtsimposesentenceinaccordancewiththe X Guidelinesbyapplyingthebaseoffenselevelandanyapplicable   factorsthatwouldreducethesentence.Similarly,incasesin `  whichthejurynecessarilydecidedfactsinrenderingitsverdict  \  thatestablishtheapplicabilityofaGuidelinesenhancementand   thecourtfindsnootherenhancementsapplicable,thecourt d  shouldcomputethesentenceundertheGuidelines. `    TheGuidelinesalsowouldremainapplicableinanycase   (usuallyinvolvingaguiltyplea)inwhichthedefendanthas h eitherstipulatedtothefactsnecessaryforapplicationofthe d Guidelinesorhaswaivedhisrighttoajurytrialonthose  facts.AstheCourtexplainedinBlakely, [w]henadefendant l pleadsguilty,theStateisfreetoseekjudicialsentence h enhancementssolongasthedefendanteitherstipulatestothe  relevantfactsorconsentstojudicialfactfinding.2004WL p  1402697,at*8.Indeed, [e]venadefendantwhostandstrial !l" mayconsenttojudicialfactfindingastosentenceenhancements. "$ Ibid.Inshort,because nothingpreventsadefendantfrom t$& waivinghisApprendirights,ibid.,applicationofthe  &p!( Guidelinesinfullcontinuestobefullyconstitutional--and '#* thereforerequiredbySection3553(b)--wherethedefendanthas x)$, doneso. $+t&. 0  C.0` (#(#WhereTheGuidelinesCannotConstitutionallyGovernThe  CourtsSentencingDecision,TheSentencingCourtMust  NonethelessGiveDueRegardToTheGuidelinesSentencex` (#` (#    Incasesinwhichthecourtdeterminesthatthedefendants 2 Guidelinessentenceturnsonenhancementsthathavenotbeen  . foundbythejury,theGuidelinescouldnotconstitutionallybe   appliedasmandatoryrulesoflawgoverningthesentence.In 6   suchcases,thecourtshouldsentencethedefendantbetweenthe 2  minimumandmaximumsentencesprescribedbystatute,anditmay   findwhateverfactsitbelievesnecessarytoimposeasentence :  withinthatrange.TheCourtinBlakelynotedthatindeterminate 6 sentencingschemes,inwhichthejudge mayimplicitlyruleon  thosefactshedeemsimportanttotheexerciseofhissentencing > discretion,remainfullyconstitutional.2004WL1402697,at* : 7.Accordingly,thecourtwouldbefreetomake(bya  preponderanceoftheevidence)whateverfactualdeterminations B arenecessaryinimposingsentenceinacaseinwhichthe > Guidelinescouldnotconstitutionallygovernthesentence.     Eveninsuchcases,however,thecourtwouldnotbefree F!" simplytoignoretheGuidelines.Under18U.S.C.3553(b), "B$ 0  [i]ntheabsenceofanapplicablesentencingguidelinein $& thecaseofanoffenseotherthanapettyoffense,thecourt t% ' shall...havedueregardfortherelationshipofthe J&!( sentenceimposedtosentencesprescribedbyguidelines  'p") applicabletosimilaroffensesandoffenders,andtothe 'F#* policystatementsoftheSentencingCommission.($+(#(# Congressaccordinglyrecognizedthattherewouldbecasesin x*%- whichtheGuidelineswouldnotbedirectlyapplicable.Evenin $,t'/ suchcases,however,Congressdirectedthatthecourtshouldgive   dueregardtotheapplicableGuidelinesprovisionsandpolicy \ statements.Thatconstitutionalityofthatprovisionisnot X calledintoquestionbyBlakely,andthereiseveryreasonto   believethatCongresswouldhaveintendedthatitremain `  applicableevenincasesinwhichtheGuidelinesthemselves  \  cannotdirectlygovernthesentence.Accordingly,evenincases   inwhichtheGuidelinescannotconstitutionallygovernthe d  sentence,thesentencingcourtshouldconsiderthesentencing `  rangeapplicableunderthemostanalogousGuidelinesprovisions   andgivethatrange dueregardinimposingsentence. h   Similarly,thestatutesprovidingforappellatereviewof d sentenceswouldcontinuetogovern,evenincasesinwhichthe  Guidelinesthemselvescannotconstitutionallygovernthe l sentence.Thegovernment,forexample,couldstillappealonthe h groundthatthesentence wasimposedforanoffenseforwhich  thereisnosentencingguidelineandisplainlyunreasonable,18 p  U.S.C.3742(b),andthecourtofappealsshouldreversethe !l" sentenceifitfindsthatthesentencewassoimposed,18U.S.C. "$ 3742(f)(2).Itis plainlyunreasonableforadistrictcourtto t$& failtogive dueregardtotheGuidelines,asrequiredby  &p!( Section3553(b).Accordingly,acourtofappealsdetermination '#* ofwhetherthesentenceshouldbereversedunderSection x)$, 3742(f)(2)shouldplacesignificantweightonwhethersuchregard $+t&. wasgiven.    Finally,evenasidefromthosestatutorycommands, [t]he \ SentencingCommissionhascarefullydevelopedtheGuidelinesover X manyyears,andtheGuidelinesgenerallyproducesentencesthat   accordwiththepublicsviewofjustpunishment.Croxford, `  2004WL1462111,at*13.Accordingly,theGuidelinesprovide  \   usefulinstructionontheappropriatesentence,ibid.,and   sentencingcourtsshouldtakethemintocarefulconsiderationin d  imposingsentenceevenincasesinwhich,duetoBlakely,the `  Guidelinescouldnotbeappliedasbindingauthoritythatgoverns   thesentence. h