Fascinating Sixth Circuit ruling on meth guidelines

Although not quite as exciting as the Blakely case cert grant (basics here), the Sixth Circuit today provides a great read in US v. Martin, No. 04-6428 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2006) (available here).  In Martin, the Sxth Circuit in a long and thoughtful opinion rejects a set of statutory and constitutional challenges to the way the US Sentencing Commission "established ratios to estimate the amount of methamphetamine that can reasonably be manufactured from certain precursor chemicals."  Throughthe challenge to the USSC's drug conversion ratio in the guidelines fails in Martin, I think we ough to see more defendants make such broad-side attacks on the construction and application of particular provisions of the guideliens (especially given the poor way, as discussed here and here, the USSC is so far dealing with post-Booker realities).

Also of interest in Martin is a discussion of whether offenses are "related" in the guidelines, which prompts Judge Martin to add a colorful concurrence that further secures his place in the Sentencing Judges Hall of Fame.  Of course, though I love the Austin Powers footnote in the Martin concurrent, whay really made me say "Yeah, baby!" was this passage:

Section 3553(a) instructs district courts to impose "a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" set forth in section 3553(a).  Now, although the calculation of Martin's criminal history score under the Guidelines was seven and led to a sentencing range of 168 to 210 months imprisonment, the district court is not bound to adhere to the Guideline range.  A district court's explicit textual responsibility is to impose "a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes" set forth in section 3553(a). See also United States v. Foreman, 2006 WL 287365, *5 (6th Cir. 2006). 

Appellate courts then review sentences for reasonableness — reasonableness in light of the factors set forth in section 3553(a), but also in light of whether the district court complied with its own textual responsibility to impose "a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply" with these purposes.