« Republican Kentucky Gov. grants many pardons and commutations | Main | Fascinating plea reversal from the Fourth Circuit ... and Seventh, too »
December 12, 2007
USSC's "Reader-Friendly" version of retroactivity amendment
Now up at the US Sentencing Commission website is this notice:
"Reader-Friendly" Version of Amendments on Retroactivity Effective March 3, 2008 On December 11, 2007, the Commission voted to give retroactive effect to the recent crack cocaine amendment and adopted other modifications to the policy statement covering retroactivity. This reader-friendly text combines the text of the two amendments to policy statement §1B1.10 [Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)] and shows §1B1.10 as it will appear in a forthcoming supplement to the Guidelines Manual.
Official text of the amendments will be posted on the Commission’s website at www.ussc.gov and can be found in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register. The amendments incorporated into this reader-friendly version of §1B1.10 do not take effect until March 3, 2008. Until that date, the court should apply §1B1.10 as it exists in the Guidelines Manual effective November 1, 2007.
December 12, 2007 at 02:44 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e54fa1a57f8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USSC's "Reader-Friendly" version of retroactivity amendment:
Comments
Doug: Any thoughts on the legal validity under 3582(c) of the limitations that the Commission's 3/08 version of 1B1.10 would attempt to place on district courts' discretion in granting crack-reduction sentence modifications? Is this "policy statement" a legitimate implementation of the Commission's authority to guide modifications under the statute, or does it improperly attempt to restrict judges in their duty to consider and apply all of 3553(a)? Is it unconstitutional or otherwise illegal to prohibit judges from correcting errors they may now notice in other parts of their own prior guideline applications, or by obligating them to impose sentences which would not be reasonable but for findings not made by a jury?
Posted by: Peter G | Dec 12, 2007 11:47:59 PM
