« Ho-hum: another below-guideline sentence reversed by the Eighth Circuit | Main | SL&P annotated (thanks to Prof. Filler) »
March 31, 2006
Tracking reasonableness review outcomes
BUMP AND UPDATE: To celebrate the end of March, I have updated my list of post-Booker reasonableness rulings previously noted on the blog. The list below is now current through the end of March (although it is certainly not comprehensive; I surely have missed some rulings).
Original prelude (3/3/2006): In this recent post, I reviewed Booker reasonableness review doctrines circuit-by-circuit. There and elsewhere I noted a disconcerting pattern: it seems all post-Booker within-guideline sentences and nearly all above-guidelines sentences are being found reasonable, whereas many below-guideline sentences are being reversed as unreasonable. To further explore these realities, I have assembled below (in reverse chronological order) some reasonableness rulings previously noted on the blog.
Reversal of within-guideline sentence as unreasonable:
Affirmance of within-guideline sentence as reasonable: Far too many to list
Reversal of above-guideline sentence as unreasonable
Affirmance of above-guideline sentence as reasonable
- Mix (9th)
- Jones (5th)
- Eldick (11th)
- Reinhart (5th)
- Porter (8th)
- Fairclough (2d)
- Smith (5th)
- Larrabee (8th)
- Jordan (7th)
- Winters (8th)
- Shannon (8th)
Reversal of below-guideline sentence as unreasonable
- Goody (8th)
- Hampton (4th)
- Lazenby (8th)
- Rivera (8th)
- Myers (8th)
- Gatewood (8th)
- Shafer (8th)
- Claiborne (8th)
- Eura (4th)
- Moreland (4th)
- Duhon (5th)
- McMannus (8th) (two sentences reversed in opinion)
- Feemster (8th)
- Clark (4th)
- Pho (1st)
- Coyle (8th)
- Saenz (8th)
Affirmance of below-guideline sentence as reasonable
This list is by no means comprehensive: I typically focus only on published opinions in my blog coverage and there may be many notable reasonableness outcomes among unpublished opinions. Indeed, in putting this list together, I am surprised by how many opinions come from just a few circuits. (This is why, as I have stressed in prior posts here and here and here, it is critical for the US Sentencing Commission to produce data on post-Booker appeals and reasonableness review.)
But the basic point is pretty simple: the pattern of reasonableness review outcomes is quite telling.
ADDENDUM: A helpful reader has sensibly suggested that I note that the US Sentencing Commission's recent Booker report (available here) has a list of reasonableness rulings through mid-March on page 30. The USSC's list includes more rulings (e.g., it lists six below-guideline sentences affirmed, and five above-guideline sentences reversed), although I am not sure I concur with how the USSC codes some of the circuit decisions. Nevertheless, anyone following the reasonableness story ought also check out page 30 of the USSC Booker report.
March 31, 2006 at 03:22 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4373751
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tracking reasonableness review outcomes:
Comments
A sentence cannot be reasonable or unreasonable; for to reason is utilize think logically or utilize good sense. It is the district court judges that are being found to be reasonable or unreasonable. If so many district court judges decisions are in fact unreasonable, that would mean they are unfair, calling into question their ability to set on the federal bench. A prison sentence may be lenient or severe, but reason for its imposition comes from the person issuing the judgment and commitment order. Call it like it is Professor Berman, list the district court judges who have been found to be unreasonable, for if they really are unfair maybe sentencing should be a matter for reasonable appellate judges.
Posted by: Barry Ward | Mar 3, 2006 7:54:50 AM
The Eighth Circuit's post-Booker pattern of approving above guidelines sentences and disapproving below guidelines sentence continues a pre-Booker pattern documented by Judge Heaney in U.S. v. Yirkovsky. 338 F.3d 936, 942, 943 (8th Cir. 2003). "A simple survey of recent appeals from criminal sentences bears out this trend. Since May of 2000, the government appealed twenty-five cases in which the district court reduced the defendant's sentence. Of those, our court reversed the district court twenty-three times, and affirmed only twice [citations omitted]. When it comes to cases in which the district court increased the defendant's sentence, one would expect to see a similar pattern of reversals, inasmuch as we have employed similar standards of review for both upward and downward adjustments and departures. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since May of 2000, we were presented with appeals from forty-six upward departures. Of those, we reversed only two, and affirmed the other forty-four. [citations omitted].
Judge Heaney concluded that, "I am deeply concerned with the trend and the message it sends to district courts-that more severe sentences are far more likely to withstand appellate review."
Posted by: Mark | Mar 3, 2006 6:53:48 PM
To refresh your memory, the big published 9th circuit case upholding a below guidelines sentence is USA v. Menyweather, 431 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005)
Posted by: Greg Silvey | Mar 31, 2006 4:08:35 PM
Greg,
I do not count Menyweather because the 9th Circuit upheld a pre-Booker decision to depart downward. My list is comprised of circuit review in cases where district judges exercised post-Booker discretion and circuit courts reviewed that exercise of discretion for reasonableness. Menyweather technically does not fit.
Posted by: Doug B. | Mar 31, 2006 4:14:10 PM
these posts are so helpful. please keep it up.
on another note, who is barry ward?
Posted by: anonymous | Mar 31, 2006 4:52:53 PM
Just thought you'd like to know that, although the Castro-Juarez case was remanded, the 7th Circuit left room for reimposition of the same sentence - and that's what he got (with new reasons). It's now on appeal again. This time the main issues are lack of notice of a 3553(a)factor considered to give an above-guidelines sentence (one of the new reasons) and failure to grant a requested continuance to resolve a defense assertion concerning the validity of a newly articulated reason.
scw
Posted by: Stephen Williams | Apr 3, 2006 12:07:18 PM