Sentencing Law and Policy

Hoping it is not yet time to give up on passage of the EQUAL Act

When the US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in Sept 2021, by a tally of 361-66, to pass the EQUAL Act to equalize powder and crack cocaine sentences, I thought the long ugly stain of the crack/powder disparity might be finally about to come to an end.  In this post, I wondered "After an overwhelming majority of GOP House delegation voted for EQUAL Act, can the Senate move quickly to finally right a 35-year wrong?."  Nearly nine months later, it is now obvious that the Senate was not able to move quickly on this issue.  But, I was still optimistic in March 2022 upon news that a full 10 GOP Senators were now signed on as co-sponsors of the EQUAL Act, and so I asked here "Is Congress finally on the verge of equalizing crack and powder cocaine sentences?."

But April brought showers dousing some of my hopefulness in the form of a group of GOP Senators introducing a competing crack/powder sentencing reform bill tougher than EQUAL Act and a press report that Democrats were fearful of potential floor votes around possible EQUAL Act amendments.  And yesterday, I saw that FAMM President Kevin Ring has this new commentary, headlined "The Senate’s Unwillingness to Pass the EQUAL Act Highlights Its Dysfunction," while almost reads like a boxer's corner man throwing in the towel.  Here are excerpts:

When Lavonda Bonds, Yvonne Mosley, and Sagan Soto-Stanton saw the U.S. House overwhelmingly pass a bill last September to eliminate the federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, they were excited and hopeful.  Their loved ones, who’ve each spent decades languishing in federal prison, could finally come home if the Senate would simply follow suit and pass this noncontroversial reform, known as the EQUAL Act.

Eight months later, these three women — and thousands of other families — are still waiting for the Senate to act.  They want to know what the holdup is.  They think I might know because I have been working in and around Congress for the past 30 years, first as a Capitol Hill staffer, then as a lobbyist, and for the past 13 years, as a D.C.-based advocate for families with loved ones in prison.

Unfortunately, I have to tell them all the same thing: The Senate is broken.  And the EQUAL Act is perhaps the best and most infuriating example of just how broken the Senate has become — it can’t even pass a bill with broad, bipartisan support and fix a 36-year-old mistake....

Congress, which voted unanimously in 2010 to reduce the disparity to 18:1, looked poised to finally eliminate it this year.  A diverse coalition of groups from across the ideological spectrum, including organizations representing police and prosecutors, civil rights, and civil liberties, joined together to support the EQUAL Act to end the unwarranted disparity.

The U.S. House approved the EQUAL Act last September by a vote of 361–66. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), conservative Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), and nearly 70 percent of the Republican caucus joined every House Democrat in a powerful display of bipartisanship on a matter of equal justice.

As attention turned to the Senate, the bill’s supporters secured eleven Republican cosponsors (and more private commitments) to demonstrate that the EQUAL Act was bipartisan, popular, and would not fall victim to the filibuster, the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to cut off debate.  There’s no threat of filibuster preventing a vote for the EQUAL act, which could change the lives of thousands of suffering families.

So what’s the problem?  Senators may have to vote on amendments that get offered to the bill and they are scared.  They fear that members in the small minority who oppose the bill will offer amendments that sound good, yet are bad policy, known as “poison pills.”

This fear has always existed, especially in election years, but in recent years it has grown to the point of creating paralysis.  In the past, supporters of important reforms would stand together in opposition to obviously ill-intentioned amendments.  But senators today obsess over voting against poison pills they think will hurt their re-election chances, and leaders of the Senate’s majority party fear these votes could lose their side’s control of the chamber.  The Democrats control the Senate now, but this has been the practice of both parties in recent years.

The result is an unwillingness to move even popular reforms like the EQUAL Act. Filibuster or not, the Senate is broken.  And if it doesn’t get fixed soon, the families of Lavonda, Yvonne, Sagan, and thousands of others will remain separated by prison bars for no reason.

I do not think this commentary signals that the EQUAL Act cannot still get passed, but it reinforces my fear that the climb is far more uphill than it seemingly should be. One might especially recall that the FIRST STEP Act got to Prez Trump's desk during the lame-duck days after the 2018 election, so maybe that history foreshadows a 2022 path for the EQUAL Act.  But, whatever might come of this particular bill, I continue to be troubled to hear that the Senate cannot advance good policy because it seems a few of its members may fail to understand how to manage politics.  Sigh.

A few of many prior posts on the EQUAL Act:

• GOP Gov and former DEA chief calls for Congress to "finally and fully end the disparity between crack and cocaine offenses" 
• US House votes 361-66 to pass today the EQUAL Act to end disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences
• After an overwhelming majority of GOP House delegation voted for EQUAL Act, can the Senate move quickly to finally right a 35-year wrong? 
• Shouldn't federal prosecutors already be doing what they can to minimize the unjust crack-powder sentencing disparity? 
• Is it foolish to hope, after now 35 years, that Congress will soon fix the crack-powder federal sentencing disparity? 
• How about passing the EQUAL Act so we can be "free at last" from the crack/powder sentencing disparity?
• Why is getting the EQUAL Act through the US Senate proving so challenging? 
• Is Congress finally on the verge of equalizing crack and powder cocaine sentences?
• GOP Senators introduce competing crack/powder sentencing reform bill tougher than EQUAL Act
• With Senate leader now pushing for EQUAL Act, can crack sentencing reform finally get to finish line?  

Depressing (and abridged) FSR reminder of just how long we have known crack sentences are especially whack

While awaiting the start of this morning's US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing ,"Examining Federal Sentencing for Crack and Powder Cocaine," at which it seems there will be considerable advocacy for lowering crack cocaine sentences to finally be in parity with powder cocaine sentence (basics here), I thought to look through some of the archives of the Federal Sentencing Reporter to see how many articles have have had folks discussing (and often sharply criticizing) crack sentences. 

Because crack sentencing rules have been subject to so much justified criticism and seen modest reform in recent years, the number of FSR articles on this topic feels more than a bit overwhelming.  Here is an abridged list of articles that caught my eye to show the varied list of authors and laments through the years:

From 1990 by Deborah Young, "Rethinking the Commission's Drug Guidelines: Courier Cases Where Quantity Overstates Culpability" 

From 1992 by Catharine M. Goodwin, "Sentencing Narcotics Cases Where Drug Amount Is a Poor Indicator of Relative Culpability"

From 1992 by Robert S. Mueller, "Mandatory Minimum Sentencing"

From 1993 by Ronald F. Wright, "Drug Sentences as a Reform Priority"

From 1993 by Richard Berk, "Preliminary Data on Race and Crack Charging Practices in Los Angeles"

From 1994 by Marc Miller and Daniel J. Freed, "The Disproportionate Imprisonment of Low-Level Drug Offenders"

From 1995 by David Yellen, "Reforming Cocaine Sentencing: The New Commission Speaks"

From 1998 by Carol A. Bergman, "The Politics of Federal Sentencing on Cocaine"

From 1999 by Kyle O'Dowd, "The Need to Re-Assess Quantity-Based Drug Sentences"

From 2001 by Paula Kautt, "Differential Usage of Guideline Standards by Defendant Race and Gender in Federal Drug Sentences: Fact or Fiction?"

From 2003 by Alfred Blumstein, "The Notorious 100:1 Crack: Powder Disparity--The Data Tell Us that It Is Time to Restore the Balance"

From 2005 by Ryan S. King and Marc Mauer, "Sentencing with Discretion: Crack Cocaine Sentencing After Booker"

From 2007 by Steven L. Chanenson and Douglas A. Berman, "Federal Cocaine Sentencing in Transition"

From 2007 by Mark Osler, "More than Numbers: A Proposal For Rational Drug Sentences"

I will stop with these links to these 15 FSR articles because I am already overwhelmed and there were dozens more articles I could have highlighted just from the period before recentfederal  crack sentencing reforms. Notably, in 2007, the US Sentencing Commission finally did a first round of (modest) crack guideline reductions, then in 2010 we got the Fair Sentencing Act and it echoed through another round of guideline reductions.  And yet, as witnesses are noting in today's Senate hearing, we still have a disparate and unjustified disparity in our cocaine sentencing laws.  Moreover, as many of the articles above highlight, our enduring commitment to a quantity-based federal drug sentencing structure is a deep problem at the root of our so many of our federal sentencing woes.

Noting how carceral craziness and foolhardy finality fixations result in cases like Tarahrick Terry's

As highlighted in this post following this past week's SCOTUS oral argument, the questions from the Justices strongly suggest that the Supreme Court will soon rule that Tarahrick Terry is not entitled to seek a resentencing under the FIRST STEP Act provision making the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.  Over at SCOTUSblog, Ekow Yankah has this effective review of the Terry argument which spotlights a portion I found especially notable toward the end:

One dissonant note came late in the morning, when Justice Brett Kavanaugh embarked on an extended exchange with Mortara.  Rather than a sharp set of questions, Kavanaugh ruminated on, among other things, the history that led to the sentencing regime Congress sought to fix.  He recalled the 1986 death of college-basketball star Len Bias from a cocaine overdose that shocked the nation and brought cocaine use squarely into the spotlight.  Recalling that Bias was only a year older than him and that he looked up to him, Kavanaugh (himself an avid basketball player and coach) mused that Bias’ death had motivated congressional action to impose harsher penalties on cocaine use, noting only casually that Bias died after using powdered cocaine.  It was, to this observer, a cringe-worthy moment of naivete; to draw a clear path from the traumatizing death of Bias to harsher punishment of crack cocaine is to ignore a sea of racial politics.  Len Bias’s death did not lead Congress to hammer down on Wall Street bankers doing coke.

Yankaw is right to spotlight generally how ugly racial realities were largely ignored throughout the Terry argument.  But even more "cringe-worthy" has been the way Congress, the US Sentencing Commission, the Department of Justice and the courts have created and sustained crazy carceral approaches to drug offenses for many decades even as the illogic, inefficacy and injustice of lengthy federal prison sentences in response to drug issues have been so plainly evident.  Apologies for a bit of a rant, but what follows is actually a reserved accounting of what strikes me a stunningly ugly (and still continuing) example of systemic injustice. 

For starters, what basis did Congress have back in 1986 to think that harsh mandatory minimum prison sentences for any drugs (let alone for crack) would be a sound and sensible way to respond to either the overdose death of a basketball superstar or societal concerns about a new drug problem?  The history of alcohol Prohibition certainly is not a rousing tale of the efficacy of criminal justice responses to substance use, and racial disparities in other drug panics have marked US policies and practices for eons.  Moreover, not long before in 1970, as noted in this article, Congress repealed most drug mandatories with then-Texas Rep. GHW Bush saying doing so would result in "better justice and more appropriate sentences."  

Critically, the carceral craziness of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 goes even further than Congress deciding to re-embrace federal mandatory minimum provision for drug offenses.  Congress in 1986 had the even crazier idea to tether its harsh prison mandatory minimums to precise drug quantities rather than to offense role or violent acts or any other sounder sentencing factors.  And Congress further decided that just five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a single nickel — would be enough to trigger five mandatory years in federal prison (while a full pound of the same stuff in powder form would not).       

As I highlighted in this recent post, in 1991 the US Sentencing Commission wrote a lengthy report to Congress detailing how misguided and racially disparate all mandatory minimum provisions were in operation; in 1995, the USSC wrote another report documenting the extreme racial disparities resulting from the 100-1 crack/powder ratio.  I had the honor in 1995 to still be clerking for Second Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi who wrote at that time in United States v. Then, 56 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1995), that, if Congress failed to respond to the USSC's expert analysis, "equal protection challenges based on claims of discriminatory purpose might well lie" or the USSC's reports "might nonetheless serve to support a claim of irrationality." Id. at 468 (Calabresi, J., concurring).

Aggravatingly, Congress did not do anything to address the 100-1 ratio for 15 more years until the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, during which time tens of thousands of disproportionately black persons received disproportionately severe statutory and guideline sentences for crack offenses.  Critically, the USSC, the DOJ, and the courts ought also be faulted for carceral craziness in this period: the USSC refused for over a decade to even try to change the crack guidelines while awaiting congressional action, the DOJ (under both Prez Clinton and Prez Bush) was generally opposition to any major sentencing reforms, and courts consistently rejected any and all challenges to this racially disparate and irrational sentencing structure. 

Interestingly, the Booker case merits mention in this history not because it happened to be a crack case, but because some federal judges started using their new post-Booker discretion to do better in crack cases and the USSC advanced some modest (but still meaningful) crack guideline amendments as a result.  But, tellingly, DOJ still largely opposed district judges going below the crack guidelines after Booker (which required SCOTUS to issue the important Kimbrough decision), and many district judges still readily and regularly sentenced within the severe 100-1 crack guidelines even after Booker and Kimbrough made clear that they had broad authority to effectuate the USSC's expert analysis that the crack guidelines produced racial disparities and generally recommended prison terms that were much "greater than necessary." 

Of course, in August 2010, we finally get the Fair Sentencing Act from Congress.  Notably, the FSA did not unwind the key carceral craziness of tethering harsh mandatory prison minimums to precise drug quantities, nor did it provide for treating crack and powder offenses similarly.  Rather the FSA simply says it now takes 28 grams grams of crack — the weight of five quarters — to trigger five mandatory years in federal prison (though a full pound of the same stuff in powder form sill will not).  The US Sentencing Commission amends the crack guidelines downward accordingly as instructed by the FSA, and thankfully the federal sentencing world gets just a little bit less carceral crazy going forward for some crack cases. 

But even as the carceral craziness recedes a bit after the FSA of 2010, foolhardy finality fixations kick into high gear.  Notably, as noted in this post, international human rights law generally provides that, when legislators pass a new law to lighten sentences, offenders have a right to benefit from it retroactively.  But the Obama Justice Department argues in 2010 that federal law required that even crack defendants who had not yet been sentencing when the FSA was enacted still had to be subject to the 100-1 ratio for pre-FSA conduct even through everyone agreed that pre-FSA sentences for crack were unfair, excessive, ineffectual and produced extreme racial disparities.  The Supreme Court in the 2012 Dorsey case — by only a 5-4 margin — decides sentencing courts did not have to keep applying a misguided and suspect sentencing scheme in these pipeline cases.  But all the while the USSC, the DOJ and the courts all readily accept that nobody should get any retroactive benefit from the FSA statutory change simply because Congress did not say expressly that it wanted people still in prison still enduring the 100-1 ratio's carceral knee on their necks to have a chance to argue they should get to sooner breathe the air outside prison walls.           

Critically, as just suggested, retroactivity of lower crack sentences (or any other sentencing changes) in the federal system has never been automatic.  Persons in prison, even if permitted under applicable laws to get to court for resentencing, generally have to prove to a judge that public safety concerns and other equities weigh in favor of a lower sentence.  That is, for Tarahrick Terry and so many others, they are not actually arguing for resentencing, they are arguing that they should just have a chance to argue for discretionary resentencing.  In a law review article some years ago, "Re-Balancing Fitness, Fairness, and Finality for Sentences," I contend it ought to be a lot easier for a defendant to get access to court seeking resentencing because "the conceptual, policy, and practical reasons [that may justify] limiting review and reconsideration of final convictions are not nearly as compelling when only sentences are at issue."  I find it so frustrating discretionary resentencing for crack offenders remains so contested even when each and every federal policy-maker in the three branches of the federal government — Congress, the Prez and his Justice Department, and the US Sentencing Commission — have all expressly and formally declared that all 100-1 ratio pre-FSA crack prison sentences were unfair, excessive, ineffectual and produced extreme racial disparities.

Of course, Congress voted almost unanimously for the FIRST STEP Act, which is a huge bill designed to help reduce a lot of federal sentences and which included a provision making the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.  But, given the SCOTUS argument in Terry, it appears that because Congress did not use just the precise kind of magic words in that statutory provision, the lowest level of all crack offenders are to be categorically excluded from securing even a chance to argue for resentencing.  Sigh.  Injustice must sometimes be one of those turtles going all the way down as carceral craziness and foolhardy finality fixations persist circa 2021.  There are some heartening indications that we all know we can and should be doing a lot better in federal sentencing and elsewhere, but Terry is perhaps a useful reminder that the myriad sentencing and racial injustices of the past are never dead, and they are not even past.

Prior recent related posts on Terry:

• Federal defendant in Terry with many notable friends urging broad application of crack retroactivity provision of FIRST STEP Act
• Acting SG tells SCOTUS that new administration now supports broad application of crack retroactivity provision of FIRST STEP Act in Terry
• Terry v. US, the final SCOTUS argument of Term, provides yet another reminder of the persistent trauma and drama created by the 100-1 crack ratio
• SCOTUS argument in Terry suggests low-level crack defendant unlikely to secure resentencing based on FSA retroactivity 

New efforts to fix the ugly old problem of sentencing disparity for federal crack and powder cocaine offenses

As detailed in this press relase from Senator Cory Booker's office, "U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced legislation that will finally eliminate the federal crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity and apply it retroactively to those already convicted or sentenced."  Here is more:

After the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, sentencing for crack and powder cocaine offenses vastly differed. For instance, until 2010, someone caught distributing 5 grams of crack cocaine served the same 5-year prison sentence as someone caught distributing 500 grams of powder cocaine. Over the years, this 100:1 sentencing disparity has been widely criticized as lacking scientific justification. Furthermore, the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity has disproportionately impacted people of color.

The Fair Sentencing Act, introduced by Senator Durbin, passed in 2010 during the Obama administration and reduced the sentencing disparity from 100:1 to 18:1....  The Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act would eliminate the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity and ensure that those who were convicted or sentenced for a federal offense involving cocaine can receive a re-sentencing under the new law.

And FAMM has this press release highlighting advocates support for this effort to remedy a long-standing and ugly federal sentencing injustice.  Here are excerpts:

FAMM and Prison Fellowship have teamed up to launch the #EndTheDisparity Campaign to urge Congress to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine-related sentences. Both organizations are circulating petitions and are planning a series of activities to build public support for reform.

“We have been fighting to repeal unjust sentencing laws for 30 years, and we’ve seen no greater injustice than the crack-powder disparity,” said FAMM President Kevin Ring. “We were glad Congress reduced the disparity in 2010, but it’s time to finish the job. We must remove this racially discriminatory scheme from the criminal code.”

In 2010, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack-powder disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. Lawmakers acknowledged that the arguments for the original disparity had been proven incorrect; crack cocaine is no more addictive than powder and is not more likely to cause violent crime.

“The unequal treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses is among the most glaring examples of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system,” said Heather Rice-Minus, Senior Vice President of Advocacy and Church Mobilization for Prison Fellowship. “There is no sound scientific reason to punish powder and cocaine offenses differently and more importantly, there is a moral imperative to repent from this injustice.”

Uncontroverted was the fact that lengthy mandatory minimum prison terms for crack offenses disproportionately harmed Black people.  Crack usage rates did not differ greatly between white and Black Americans, but more than 80% of federal crack convictions involved Black defendants.

While the Fair Sentencing Act greatly reduced the number of people subject to the mandatory minimum sentences for crack, Black people still make up more than 80 percent of federal crack convictions....

For more information and background on the disparity and campaign see the resources below:

• Ending the Disparity between Crack & Powder Cocaine Sentencing
• The Justice Chronicles: Racial Inequity (Video featuring Matthew Charles)

US Sentencing Commission releases its latest updated "First Step Act of 2018 Resentencing Provisions Retroactivity Data Report"

I just noticed that the US Sentencing Commission today released this updated new version of its data report titled "First Step Act of 2018 Resentencing Provisions Retroactivity Data Report." The introduction to the report provides this context and overview:

On December 21, 2018, the President signed into law the First Step Act of 2018.  Section 404 of that act provides that any defendant sentenced before the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (August 3, 2010) who did not receive the benefit of the statutory penalty changes made by that Act is eligible for a sentence reduction as if Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the offender was sentenced.  The First Step Act authorizes the defendant, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the attorney for the Government, or the court to make a motion to reduce an offender’s sentence.

The data in this report represents information concerning motions for a reduced sentence pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act which the courts have granted. The data in this report reflects all motions granted through June 30, 2020 and for which court documentation was received, coded, and edited at the Commission by October 15, 2020.

These new updated data from the USSC show that 3,363 prisoners have been granted sentence reductions.  The average sentence reduction was 71 months of imprisonment (roughly a quarter of the original sentence) among those cases in which the the resulting term of imprisonment could be determined.  Though this data is not exact and may not be complete, it still seems sound to now assert that this part of the FIRST STEP Act alone, by shortening nearly 3361 sentences by nearly 6 years, has resulted in nearly 20,000 federal prison years saved! (That is an eliminations of two hundred centuries of scheduled human time in federal cages, if you want to think of it another way.)

Of course, as I have noted before, the FSA retroactivity provision of the FIRST STEP Act was only a small piece of the legislation. But these latest data show yet again how this small piece has had big impact in lots of years of lots of lives. And, of critical importance and note to be overlooked, people of color have been distinctly impacted: the USSC data document that nearly 92% of persons receiving these FSA sentence reductions were Black and more than another 4% were Latinx.

An initial list of federal sentencing reforms to advance greater equity and justice for congressional consideration

According to this recent Hill article, headlined "Pelosi: Democrats to unveil sweeping criminal justice proposal Monday," a federal criminal justice bill is in the works that may go beyond police reforms.  Here are the basics:

Democrats on Monday will introduce wide-ranging legislation designed to combat racial inequities in the criminal justice system, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday.  The much awaited package, currently being crafted by members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), will feature provisions designed to eliminate racial profiling, rein in the excessive use of police force and repeal the so-called qualified immunity doctrine for law enforcers, which protects individual officers from lawsuits over actions they perform while on duty.

"We will not relent until that is secured — that justice is secured," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.  Yet the package will go far beyond that, Pelosi suggested.... Aside from the criminal justice elements of the Democrats' legislation, Pelosi said the package would also include provisions designed to raise the status of African Americans outside of the criminal justice system as well. "It is about other injustices, too. It's about health disparities, it's about environmental injustice, it's about economic injustice, it's about educational injustice," Pelosi said. 

This Politico piece suggests the developing bill is primarily focused on police reforms.  But if Congress has an interest, as I think it should, in broader criminal justice reforms to advance greater equity and justice, I have many suggestions.  Let's get started with some basic federal sentencing reforms:

1. Equalize crack and powder cocaine sentencing (finally!).  Based on data showing huge unfair disparities, the US Sentencing Commission in 1995 (a full quarter century ago!) sent to Congress proposed guidelines changes to fix the 100:1 crack/powder cocaine disparity by adopting a 1:1 quantity ratio at the powder cocaine level.  But Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, legislation rejecting the USSC’s proposed guideline changes (see basics here and here), thereby ensuring decades of disproportionately severe crack sentences and extreme racial inequities in cocaine offense punishments.

Barack Obama gave a 2007 campaign speech assailing the crack/powder disparity, and in 2009 the Obama Justice Department advocated for "Congress to completely eliminate the crack/powder disparity."  Sadly, despite strong DOJ advocacy for a 1:1 ratio in April 2009, it still took Congress more than a year to enact any reform to the 100:1 crack/powder cocaine disparity, and then it only could muster a partial reduction in crack sentences rather than the parity advocated by the USSC in 1995 and by DOJ in 2009.  Specifically, the Fair Sentencing Act enshrined a bew 18:1 crack/powder quantity disparity ratio into federal drug sentencing statutes and guidelines, and even this modest reform did not become fully retroactive until eight years later with the FIRST STEP Act.

As the USSC said in 1995 and as DOJ recognized in 2009, crack cocaine and powder cocaine are functionally the same drug save for the fact that Blacks are far more likely to be prosecuted federally for the former.  The crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity has long been the most tangible and consequential example of structural sentencing racism, and the Minnesota Supreme Court decades ago found a lesser disparity to be unconstitutional under its state constitution.  This ugly stain still impacting thousands of Black federal defendants needs to be wiped out once and for all.

2. Repeal federal mandatory minimums. Even before its important work highlighting racial biases in the application of federal cocaine penalties, the USSC began noting the racial inequities in the application of federal mandatory minimum statutes.  In its 1991 report, the USSC noted early data showing "disparate application of mandatory minimum sentences [which] appears to be related to the race of the defendant, where whites are more likely than non-whites to be sentenced below the applicable mandatory minimum."  In its 2011 report, the USSC again documented with copious data the various ways that the effects of severe mandatory minimum sentencing provisions "fall on Black offenders to a greater degree than on offenders in other racial groups."

One need not rely on USSC data to see clear evidence of racial disparities in the application of federal mandatory minimum.  M. Marit Rehavi and Sonja B. Starr found that federal prosecutors are almost twice as likely to file charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences against Black defendants.  Similarly, Crystal Yang found that "Black offenders are far more likely to be charged with mandatory minimums than similar white offenders, and after Booker, black defendants are significantly more likely to face mandatory minimums that exceed their Guidelines minimum compared to white defendants."

Critically, mandatory minimums have all sorts of flaws, both in theory and in practice, that justify their repeal on a number of bases beyond advancing greater racial equity.  But, as is too often the case throughout criminal justice systems, a bad law for everyone often gets applied in a way that is especially inequitable and unjust for people of color.  All federal mandatory minimums ought to be repealed.

3. Create a federal expungement statute. Having a criminal record severely limits access to employment, education, housing, civic engagement, and public assistance.  As highlighted by a recent US Commission on Civil Rights report on collateral consequences, "People of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced more harshly than are white people, which amplifies the impact of collateral consequences on this population."

An encouraging recent study by Sonja B. Starr and J.J. Prescott involving expungements in Michigan over the course of decades found that expungement recipients had extremely low subsequent crime rates and saw a sharp upturn in wages and employment levels.  Sounds like a win-win, and ever more states are each year expanding and enhancing mechanisms for record relief.  But there is currently no general federal expungement or record sealing statute, and federal courts have no inherent authority to expunge records.  Congress should again follow the wise lead of the states by creating a robust expungement statute ASAP.

Critically, these three suggestions are really just low-hanging fruit for criminal justice reforms in the sentencing space that would obviously and easily advance greater equity and justice for all.  There are plenty of other important structural changes I would also like to see in the name of racial justice ranging from eliminating all felon disenfranchisement to decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana and lots more in between.  Indeed, any kind of wise criminal justice reform is likely to serve as a kind of racial justice reform given the consistently biased operation of our justice systems.  But for now, I will be content to advocate for these three reforms and encourage others to use the comments to indicate what they consider the most urgent forms of reform in this arena.

Will the FIRST STEP Act's crack retroactivity provisions result in many reduced sentences beyond those serving mandatory-minimum terms?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by a notable "Order Reducing Sentence" entered earlier this week in US v. Tucker, No. 3:00-cr-00246-2 (S.D. Iowa, Jan. 23, 2019) (available for download below). A little background is need to explain the question and what seems especially notable about this Tucker order.

As many readers know, Section 404 of the enacted version of the FIRST STEP Act retroactively applies the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. I have assumed this section entailed only that (many) federal prisoners still serving crazy-long mandatory minimum sentences for crack offenses could get their sentences reduced.  I figured the retroactivity benefits would be confined to those serving crack mandatory-minimum terms, rather than guideline sentences, because the US Sentencing Commission had already reduced the crack guidelines and made those reduced guidelines retroactive.

But, interestingly, though Logan Tucker was convicted and sentenced in 2001 for a crack offense, his original sentence of of nearly 22 years (262 months) was driven not by a statutory mandatory minimum provision, but rather by the career-offender provisions of the (then mandatory) guidelines.  Though Tucker's sentence for a crack offense was driven by the guidelines rather than a statutory mandatory minimum provision, he was not previously eligible for a reduced sentence based on retroactive crack guideline reductions because of his career offender status. 

But now, thanks to the FIRST STEP Act, Tucker can benefit according to the analysis of US District Judge Robert Pratt.  Specifically, because Tucker was originally sentenced under a "covered offense" and also because the Fair Sentencing Act the lowered the statutory maximum he would have faced which, in turn, lowered his guideline level under the career-offender guideline, Judge Pratt concludes he can and should impose a reduced sentence for Tucker set at "188 months, the low end of the new Guidelines Range" (which, in turn, entails "a sentence reduction of seventy-four months, more than enough to warrant immediate release").

In addition to the notable outcome, I think it important and notable that federal prosecutors in this case conceded that the FIRST STEP Act authorized Judge Pratt to impose a reduced sentence (though they did urge Judge Pratt to exercise his discretion not to reduce Tucker's original sentence).  In other words, federal prosecutors in this case did not claim that FIRST STEP retroactivity benefits must be confined only to those serving crack mandatory-minimum terms, rather than guideline sentences.

So, in addition to spotlighting this interesting echo of the FIRST STEP Act's crack retroactivity provisions, I am eager to hear if lots of other courts are now considering sentence reductions for lots of other crack defendants whose terms are not directly tethered to crack mandatory-minimum terms.  I would guess that this kind of "career offender" situation may be most likely to arise, but perhaps there are other important ways in which persons sentenced to long crack terms who missed prior retroactivity opportunities now can benefit.

Download Tucker sentence reduction order 07712866067  

UPDATE:  It dawned on me after I did this post that the high-profile case of Matthew Charles, who secured release just a few days after the enactment of the FIRST STEP Act, is another example of a defendant sentenced under the career offender guideline getting retroactive relief.  Thus this Tucker ruling is not itself ground-breaking, but it further highlights the sorts of folks now able to benefit from a key sentencing provision that was added to the original prison-reform-only version of FIRST STEP.

"Mandatory minimum sentencing policies and cocaine use in the U.S., 1985–2013"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new research published in the journal BMC International Health and Human Rights and authored by Lauryn Saxe Walker and Briana Mezuk. Here is its abstract:

Background

As of May 2017, the United States federal government renewed its prioritization for the enforcement of mandatory minimum sentences for illicit drug offenses.  While the effect of such policies on racial disparities in incarceration is well-documented, less is known about the extent to which these laws are associated with decreased drug use.  This study aims to identify changes in cocaine use associated with mandatory minimum sentencing policies by examining differential sentences for powder and crack cocaine set by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) (100:1) and the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the disparate sentencing to 18:1.

Methods

Using data from National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we examined past-year cocaine use before and after implementation of the ADAA (1985–1990, N = 21,296) and FSA (2009–2013, N = 130,574). We used weighted logistic regressions and Z-tests across models to identify differential change in use between crack and powder cocaine.  Prescription drug misuse, or use outside prescribed indication or dose, was modeled as a negative control to identify underlying drug trends not related to sentencing policies.

Results

Despite harsher ADAA penalties for crack compared to powder cocaine, there was no decrease in crack use following implementation of sentencing policies (odds ratio (OR): 0.72, p = 0.13), although both powder cocaine use and misuse of prescription drugs (the negative control) decreased (OR: 0.59, p < 0.01; OR: 0.42, p < 0.01 respectively).  Furthermore, there was no change in crack use following the FSA, but powder cocaine use decreased, despite no changes to powder cocaine sentences (OR: 0.81, p = 0.02), suggesting that drug use is driven by factors not associated with sentencing policy.

Conclusions

Despite harsher penalties for crack versus powder cocaine, crack use declined less than powder cocaine and even less than drugs not included in sentencing policies.  These findings suggest that mandatory minimum sentencing may not be an effective method of deterring cocaine use.

"Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment"

The title of this post is the title of this notable and timely new report from the US Sentencing Commission. Here is a summary of its coverage and findings from this USSC webpage:

The publication Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment analyzes recidivism among crack cocaine offenders who were released immediately before and after implementation of the 2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment, and followed in the community for three years.

In order to study the impact of retroactive sentence reductions on recidivism rates, staff analyzed the recidivism rate for a group of crack cocaine offenders whose sentences were reduced pursuant to retroactive application of the 2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment. Staff then compared that rate to the recidivism rate for a comparison group of offenders who would have been eligible to seek a reduced sentence under the 2011 amendment, but were released before the effective date of that amendment after serving their full prison terms less good time and other earned credits.

Key Findings

The Commission's report aims to answer the research question, "Did the reduced sentences for the FSA Retroactivity Group result in increased recidivism?".

Key findings of the Commission’s study are as follows:

• The recidivism rates were virtually identical for offenders who were released early through retroactive application of the FSA Guideline Amendment and offenders who had served their full sentences before the FSA guideline reduction retroactively took effect. Over a three-year period following their release, the “FSA Retroactivity Group” and the “Comparison Group” each had a recidivism rate of 37.9 percent.

• Among offenders who did recidivate, for both groups the category “court or supervision violation” was most often the most serious recidivist event reported. Approximately one-third of the offenders who recidivated in both groups (32.9% for the FSA Retroactivity Group and 30.8% for the Comparison Group) had court or supervision violation as their most serious recidivist event.

• Among offenders who did recidivate, the time to recidivism for both groups were nearly identical. The median time to recidivism for offenders who recidivated in both groups was approximately 14½ months.

Colorado judge finds state's statutory response to Miller unconstitutionally favors certain juve defendants at resentencing

This local article reports on an interesting (and quirky?) ruling from a Colorado state judge last week finding constitutional problems with how the state responded to the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment ruling in Miller precluding any mandatory LWOP sentencing for juvenile murderers.  The full headline of the article provides the basics: "Colorado law giving a break to some serving life for crimes committed as juveniles is unconstitutional, judge rules: Judge Carlos Samour Jr. ruled state can’t set preferential sentence for offenders convicted of felony murder." Here are more particulars: 

Part of a 2016 Colorado law that offers special sentencing considerations for some of the 50 people serving life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles has been ruled unconstitutional by an Arapahoe County judge. Chief District Court Judge Carlos Samour Jr. this week entered his ruling in a case filed by Curtis Brooks, who was sentenced in 1997 to life in prison without parole after his conviction for felony murder.

The law, Samour ruled, gives preferential treatment to Brooks and 15 other offenders convicted of felony murder, offering them reduced sentences of 30 to 50 years in prison, while 34 other convicts serving life without parole could get new sentences of life in prison with the possibility of parole.  “Under the circumstances present, the court finds that the challenged provisions grant the 16 defendants a special or exclusive privilege,” his ruling says.

Brooks had applied to have his sentence reduced under the law, which the legislature passed last year. Felony murder holds defendants liable for first-degree murder if they commit or attempt certain felonies, such as burglary or robbery, and someone dies “in the course of or in furtherance of the crime.” In Brooks’ case, the owner of a car was killed by someone else as they tried to steal the vehicle. Brooks was 15.

Although Samour’s ruling is very well-reasoned, it is not binding precedent, said Ann Tomsic, chief deputy attorney for the 18th Judicial District.  Other judges probably will read Samour’s ruling and base their sentencing decisions on what he wrote, she said.... Brooks’ attorneys, including Dru Nielsen, said they could not comment on the facts of the case. Nor would they say whether they would appeal Samour’s decision....

Samour concluded that because the portion of the 2016 law applying only to those convicted of felony murder is unconstitutional, he must sentence Brooks to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

The Colorado legislature said juveniles convicted of felony murder cannot be sentenced to life without parole. Had lawmakers passed a bill that applied equally to all people convicted as an adult for crimes committed as a juvenile, it would have been constitutional, Samour said.  “What the legislature could not do, however, is what it, in fact, did: arbitrarily single out the 16 defendants and bestow preferential treatment upon them,” Samour ruled. Emphasizing his point, he wrote that the legislature cannot act as a sentencing court or a parole board.

I was unable to find on-line the formal opinion in this case, but in doing a bit of research I found this other local Colorado article from August reporting on a similar decision by another state judge which explains that Colorado prosecutors are apparently the ones objecting to the new Colorado statutory rule providing for a lower resentencing range for juveniles previously convicted of only felony murder. Here is how this other article explains the legal dynamics seemingly in play:

In his ruling, Epstein found that the state Legislature exceeded its authority when it provided the possibility of a 30- to 50-year sentence for felony murder convicts. He granted a motion by the El Paso County District Attorney's Office that attacked the law on procedural grounds, arguing that the sentencing range is unconstitutional because the reduced sentence wouldn't be available to anyone convicted of felony murder before or after the 16-year period. One of Medina's attorneys, Nicole Mooney, said prosecutors in at least three other jurisdictions have filed similar motions, and suggested that prosecutors' success in El Paso County could encourage more challenges — and embolden judges to grant them.

Prosecutor Jennifer Viehman, who mounted the successful challenge, said the 2016 law violated the state Constitution's provisions for special legislation by creating a "closed class" of beneficiaries. "You can't just single out a little special class of people, and make laws just for them," she said. "That's what the judge agreed with." Without the chance for parole after 30 years, then only one sentence is available — life in prison with the chance for parole after 40 years.

I surmise from this second article that judges are finding the distinct resentencing provisions for those convicted of felony murder to be a kind of problematic "special" legislation under Colorado constitutional law. Without expertise in state constitutional law, I cannot quite be sure if that is a sound or suspect conclusion.

UPDATE:  A helpful reader sent me a copy of the 48-page opinion in the Brooks case, which can be downloaded below and has the following section in its introductory paragraphs:

For the reasons articulated in this Order, the Court finds that the defendant must be resentenced, but concludes that the statutory provisions authorizing a determinate prison sentence of thirty to fifty years with ten years of mandatory parole are invalid because they constitute prohibited special legislation under the Colorado Constitution. The Court, therefore, grants the People’s motion to declare the relevant statutory provisions unconstitutional and denies the defendant’s request for a thirty-year prison sentence with ten years of mandatory parole.  In light of these rulings, and based on the legislature’s intent, the Court determines that the defendant must be resentenced to a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole after forty years.

Download Brooks - Post-Conviction Order

Prez candidate Hillary Clinton now talking abut equalizing crack and powder federal sentences

Long-time readers with a very good memory and those who have followed the debates over crack/powder federal sentencing for a very long time may recall that earliy in the 2008 Prez campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton came out opposed to retroactive implementation of the small reduction in crack guideline sentences that the US Sentencing Commission completed in 2007.  Here are a few posts from eight years ago on this blog on that topic:

• A retroactive litmus test on leading Democratic candidates
• Seeking to clear up Clintonian confusion on crack retroactivity
• More questions about Clinton's opposition to crack guideline retroactivity
• Cracked history: How Hillary Clinton really "played the race card" and Sean Wilentz failed to notice
• Exposing the (racist?) hypocrisy of Clintonian speeches without solutions

I raise this notable federal crack sentencing history concerning Hillary Clinton because of this notable new Wall Street Journal article headlined "Hillary Clinton Calls for Equal Treatment in Cocaine Sentencing." Here are excerpts:

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is calling for equal treatment in sentencing drug offenders who use crack and powder cocaine, part of her agenda for overhauling the criminal justice system. She’s also reiterating her support for a ban on racial profiling by law enforcement officials.

A Clinton aide said she would announce the proposals on her trip Friday to Atlanta, where she plans to address a Rainbow PUSH Ministers’ lunch hosted by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and where she will appear at a rally to launch African Americans for Hillary, a group supporting her campaign.

Mrs. Clinton’s support among African-Americans is strong and has remained so even through a rocky summer that saw her poll numbers fall with many other voters. Black voters play a significant role in certain Democratic primary states, including South Carolina, which hosts the third nominating contest, and throughout the South, where primaries are set for March 1....

Her approach to criminal justice issues in this campaign is notably different from the tone she took both as first lady and as a U.S. senator, and reflects a growing political consensus that the crackdown on crime that was in full force when Bill Clinton was president has gone too far....

On Friday, she will lay out two specific ideas, with more proposals coming next week, the campaign aide said. First, she’ll propose eliminating disparities in sentencing for people caught with crack and powder cocaine. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed legislation that reduced the sentencing disparity. Until then, to be charged with a felony, crack users had to possess just five grams of the drug, but powder cocaine users needed to be found with 500 grams, a 100-to-1 disparity.

A majority of crack offenders are black, whereas whites are more likely to be caught with powdered cocaine, leading to a dramatic racial disparity in punishment. The gap dropped to 18-to-1 under the 2010 legislation, with the threshold for crack rising to 28 grams. But advocates say that isn’t enough.

The ACLU called the 2010 legislation a “step toward fairness” but said more was needed. “Because crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, there should not be any disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses—the only truly fair ratio is 1:1,” the group said.

The campaign aide said Mrs. Clinton would support further increasing the threshold for crack offenses so it meets the existing powder cocaine guidelines.

As a senator, Mrs. Clinton supported reducing the disparities between sentencing for crack and powder cocaine. But as a presidential candidate in 2007, she opposed making shorter sentences for crack offenders retroactive, a position that put her to the right of other Democratic candidates. This time, she supports making the change retroactive.

US Sentencing Commission releases big report on 5-year impact of Fair Sentencing Act

As reported in this official USSC news release, today "the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its report assessing the impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which among other things reduced the statutory 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio of crack to powder cocaine." Here are highlights of an encouraging report via the news release:

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris, Chair of the Commission, said: “We found that the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences, substantially reduced the federal prison population, and resulted in fewer federal prosecutions for crack cocaine. All this occurred while crack cocaine use continued to decline.”

To assess the impact of the FSA, the Commission analyzed external data sources and undertook statistical analyses of its own federal sentencing data spanning before and after the enactment of the FSA. Among other things, the study shows that:

• Many fewer crack cocaine offenders have been prosecuted annually since the FSA, although the number is still substantial;

• Crack cocaine offenders prosecuted after the FSA are, on average, about as serious as those prosecuted before the FSA;

• Rates of crack cocaine offenders cooperating with law enforcement have not changed despite the reduction in penalties; and,

• Average crack cocaine sentences are lower, and are now closer to average powder cocaine sentences.

The full report, which runs almost 100 pages including all its materials is available at this link. The USSC's website now has this terrific page with various report-related materials and links for easy consumption of all the data in the report.

Great coverage of crack crimes and punishments via Al Jazeera America

I am pleased (and a bit overwhelmed) by this huge new series of stories, infographics, pictures, personal stories concerning crack crimes and punishment put together by Al Jazeera America.  Here are links to just some parts of the series:

Waiting on a fix: Legal legacy of the crack epidemic: In the 1980s, the US went to war on crack. Thirty years on, judiciary is still hooked on unfair and unequal sentencing

Documenting the ravages of the 1980s crack epidemic: Renowned documentary photographer Eugene Richards recorded the brutal realities facing communities affected by crack

'Life without parole is a walking death': Andre Badley, imprisoned in 1997 for dealing crack, could spend his life behind bars while bigger dealers go free.

A rush to judgment: In 1986, lawmakers wrote new mandatory crack cocaine penalties in a few short days, using the advice of a perjurer.

AG Holder's speech at "Dream March" stresses fairness and "equal justice" (... as federal crack prisoners keep waiting)

I just got an e-mail providing this link to the text of Attorney General Eric Holder's prepared remarks which he delivered today in Washington DC as part of the "National Action to Realize the Dream March." Here are some excerpts that caught my eye (with my emphasis added):

It is an honor to be here — among so many friends, distinguished civil rights leaders, Members of Congress, and fellow citizens who have fought, rallied, and organized — from the streets of this nation, to the halls of our Capitol — to advance the cause of justice.

Fifty years ago, Dr. King shared his dream with the world and described his vision for a society that offered, and delivered, the promise of equal justice under law.   He assured his fellow citizens that this goal was within reach — so long as they kept faith with one another, and maintained the courage and commitment to work toward it.  And he urged them to do just that.  By calling for no more — and no less — than equal justice.  By standing up for the civil rights to which everyone is entitled.  And by speaking out — in the face of hatred and violence, in defiance of those who sought to turn them back with fire hoses, bullets, and bombs — for the dignity of a promise kept; the honor of a right redeemed; and the pursuit of a sacred truth that’s been woven through our history since this country’s earliest days: that all are created equal....

But today's observance is about far more than reflecting on our past.  Today’s March is also about committing to shape the future we will share — a future that preserves the progress, and builds on the achievements, that have led us to this moment.  Today, we look to the work that remains unfinished, and make note of our nation's shortcomings, not because we wish to dwell on imperfection — but because, as those who came before us, we love this great country.  We want this nation to be all that it was designed to be — and all that it can become. We recognize that we are forever bound to one another and that we stand united by the work that lies ahead — and by the journey that still stretches before us.

This morning, we affirm that this struggle must, and will, go on in the cause of our nation’s quest for justice — until every eligible American has the chance to exercise his or her right to vote, unencumbered by discriminatory or unneeded procedures, rules, or practices.  It must go on until our criminal justice system can ensure that all are treated equally and fairly in the eyes of the law.  And it must go on until every action we take reflects our values and that which is best about us.  It must go on until those now living, and generations yet to be born, can be assured the rights and opportunities that have been too long denied to too many.

The America envisioned at this site 50 years ago — the “beloved community” — has not yet been realized.  But half a century after the March, and 150 years after Emancipation, it is finally within our grasp.  Together — through determined effort; through a willingness to confront corrosive forces tied to special interests rather than the common good; and through devotion to our founding documents — I know that, in the 21st century, we will see an America that is more perfect and more fair....

To AG Holder's credit, back in April 2009, his Justice Department went to Capitol Hill to tell Congress that the current Administration then believed (and still believes?) that a commitment to fairness and equal justice required completely eliminating the differential treatment of crack and powder cocaine in federal sentencing law.  But since that time, the Obama Administration has suggested it is content with Congress's decision to merely reduce — from 100-1 to 18-1 — the differential treatment of drug quantities for crack and powder.  Moreover, this Administration has made no real effort to help those sentenced before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act to get any fair or equal benefits from the new law's reduced crack sentencing terms.

Indeed, from its initial advocacy to limit "pipeline" cases from getting the benefit of the FSA's reduced mandatory minimums, to its continued disinclination to seek to help folks still serving excessively long sentences based on the pre-FSA 100-1 crack laws, the Holder Justice Department's actions suggest they do not really think a commitment to fairness and equal justice calls for doing much of anything to help crack offenders sentenced before August 2013. 

Please understand that I know full well the range of forcefully legal arguments and political considerations which can be made to justify preventing thousands of federal prisoners still serving excessively long crack sentences from getting any benefits from the FSA.  But I also know full well that if Dr. King were alive today, he surely would be advocating forcefully for this Administration to live up to its commitment to fairness and equal justice and to do something to help those federal prisoners still languishing in prison based on the unfair and unequal sentences required by the pre-FSA crack laws.

Indeed, with current federal prisoners in mind, I think we still are awaiting the day that Dr. King dreamed of and spoke about when he ended his speech in this way:

[I dream of] the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.  So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.  Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!  Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!  Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

I suppose we all need to just keep dreaming, while still stressing the "fierce urgency of now."

New USSC data on implimentation and impact of retroactive crack guidelines after FSA

I just noticed on the US Sentencing Commission's website this new data report carrying the title "Preliminary Crack Retroactivity Data Report; Fair Sentencing Act."  This report, dated July 2013, appears to be the latest accounting of who has (and has not) received the benefit of retroactive application of the 2011 amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines for crack offenses which implemented the new 18-1 crack/powder ratio that Congress created via the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Based on the information reflected in Tables 1 amd 8 of this data report, it appears that just over 7300 defendants received, on average, a 29-month reduction in their crack sentences thanks to the new FSA-inspired crack guidelines being made retroactive.  Significantly, this average reduction merely lowered the average crack sentence from roughly 12.5 years to just over 10 years for the group receiving sentence reductions; this means that even the new-average-lowered sentence for crack offenses were still significantly higher that the average sentences imposed for any other federal drug crimes.

For those eager to gauge the potential economic impact of FSA retroactivity, it appears that the retroactive guidelines as implemented has now saved almost 16,000 cumulative years of federal imprisonment, with a consequent savings to federal taxpayers of approximately a half-billion dollars (based on a conservative estimate of a taxpayer cost of roughly $30,000 per prisoner for each year of federal incarceration).  And for those concerned about racial sentencing dynamics, Table 5 of this data reports that more than 85% of those benefiting from reduced crack sentences have been black prisoners, demonstrating once again the historically racialized reality of federal crack prosecutions.

As I have said in prior posts, if those defendants who received reduced sentences find ways to become productive (and tax-paying) citizens, the benefits to society will profoundly transcend the saved incarceration costs. And it those defendants do not learn the error of their law-breaking ways, I both expect and hope they will really get the sentencing book thrown at them if ever up for sentencing again.

My Sixth Circuit amicus brief effort now filed explaining my Eighth Amendment FSA views in Blewett

As regular readers likely recall, a little over a month ago a split Sixth Circuit panel in US v. Blewett, No. 12-5226 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013) (available here), used equal protection principles to justify giving the new crack statutory sentencings levels of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive effect.  In my first post about the Blewett ruling, I noted that I was unsure that a "Fifth Amendment equal protection theory provides a strong constitutional foundation" for Blewett, but I also suggested, "in the wake of the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act and the USSC's implementation of its new 18-1 crack guidelines retroactively, that a proper application of the Eighth Amendment could and should provided a reasoned and reasonable basis to give full retroactive effect to all the provisions of the FSA." 

A couple of weeks ago, as reported in this post, the Sixth Circuit responded to the Government's en banc petition with a letter to the parties express seeking additional briefing "addressing whether the Blewetts’ punishment in this case based on a 100-to-1 ratio of crack to powder cocaine is constitutionally disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. "  Ever interested in sharing my perspectives in full glossy detail, I have spent the last few days finalizing an amicus brief on behalf of NACDL explaining my Eighth Amendment thinking and that brief was filed with the Sixth Circuit (and with the consent of the parties) this afternoon.

For those following the Blewett case or interested in FSA retroactivity arguments, I recommend reading my 15-page filing in full (and I have provided the full document for downloading below).  Here are a few passages that capture some of the themes to be found in the brief:

Through passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Congress significantly reduced the sentences mandated and recommended for all crack offenses (1) by raising by over 500% the quantity of crack triggering five- and ten-year minimum sentences, and (2) by ordering the U.S. Sentencing Commission to reduce all crack guideline sentences through emergency amendments to be promulgated “as soon as practicable.”  See Sections 2 & 8 of FSA.  As the Supreme Court has explained, this landmark legislation reflected Congress’ formal response to “the Commission and others in the law enforcement community strongly criticiz[ing] Congress’ decision to set” crack sentences so high relative to powder cocaine sentences and Congress having “specifically found in the Fair Sentencing Act that [each pre-FSA crack] sentence was unfairly long.”  Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2328, 2333 (2012).  In other words, passage of the FSA is a clear, bold and unmistakable legislative statement by our nation’s representatives that pre-FSA crack sentences were unnecessarily severe, unfair and excessively long.

While the text of the FSA provides the clearest objective evidence of the national consensus against the extreme pre-FSA crack sentencing provisions, federal practices, reflected in the work of other branches both before and after the FSA’s passage, confirm that the now-repealed 100-1 crack/powder cocaine sentencing scheme has long been rejected by all significant federal sentencing decision-makers....

It is not merely notable, but of great constitutional import, that virtually every federal criminal justice actor has in virtually every possible way acted in the last half-decade to demonstrate and vindicate the consensus view that pre-FSA crack sentences were excessively long.  Significantly, in recent Eighth Amendment cases such as Miller and Graham and Kennedy and Roper and Atkins, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional extreme sentences that were still being vigorously defended by the jurisdictions which imposed them.  Here, in sharp contrast, not only have the pre-FSA crack sentences imposed on the Blewetts been repealed by Congress, it is near impossible to find a single modern federal criminal justice decision-maker who will voice any substantive defense of the pre-FSA 100-1 crack sentencing structure.

Download Blewett Amicus NACDL

Related posts on Blewett:

• On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences
• "Crackheaded Ruling by Sixth Circuit"
• How quickly can and will (hundreds of) imprisoned crack defendants file "Blewett claims"?
• Two weeks later, has there been any significant and noteworthy Blewett blowback?
• As expected, feds ask full Sixth Circuit to review and reverse Blewett crack retroactivity ruling
• Sixth Circuit calls for briefing on Eighth Amendment in Blewett crack sentencing retroactivity case

Sixth Circuit calls for briefing on Eighth Amendment in Blewett crack sentencing retroactivity case

In this post a month ago, I first reported that a majorty of a Sixth Circuit panel in US v. Blewett, No. 12-5226 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013) (available here), used equal protection principles to justify giving the new crack statutory sentencings levels of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive effect.  In that post, I noted that was unsure that a "Fifth Amendment equal protection theory provides a strong constitutional foundation" for Blewett, but I also suggested, "in the wake of the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act and the USSC's implementation of its new 18-1 crack guidelines retroactively, that a proper application of the Eighth Amendment could and should provided a reasoned and reasonable basis to give full retroactive effect to all the provisions of the FSA."  In turn, I was not at all surprised when the government, as reported here, assailed the majority opinion in Blewett when seeking en banc review with the full Sixth Circuit a couple of weeks ago.

I am not quite pleased and excited to learn that the Sixth Circuit now seems interested in the Eighth Amendment as I am in Blewett, as evidenced by the text of a letter sent yesterday to counsel in Blewett: 

RE: Case Nos. 12-5226/5582

USA v. Cornelius D. Blewett and Jarreous J. Blewitt

Dear Counsel:

In connection with the prosecution’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, the United States should submit a brief of not more than fifteen (15) pages by June 28, 2013, addressing whether the Blewetts’ punishment in this case based on a 100-to-1 ratio of crack to powder cocaine is constitutionally disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.  See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983) (striking down imposition of sentence of life without parole for passing a worthless check because “a criminal sentence must be proportionate to the crime for which the defendant has been convicted”).  The Blewetts should also submit a brief of not more than thirty (30) pages in response to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the United States by June 28, 2013, that includes both their response to the Petition for Rehearing and their argument concerning the Eighth Amendment issue stated above.

Download Blewett Letter

I had been assuming the Sixth Circuit was going to grant en banc review in Blewett, and I had been gearing up to author an amicus brief on Eighth Amendment issues once that proceeding was set up and a briefing schedule set. And while I am now so very pleased to discover that the Sixth Circuit has ordered the parties to brief Eighth Amendment issues as it considers the government's en banc petition, I am now uncertain as to whether I can and should try to file my friendly thoughts on this topic with the Sixth Circuit later this month. Thoughts, dear readers?

Related posts on Blewett:

• On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences
• "Crackheaded Ruling by Sixth Circuit"
• How quickly can and will (hundreds of) imprisoned crack defendants file "Blewett claims"?
• Two weeks later, has there been any significant and noteworthy Blewett blowback?
• As expected, feds ask full Sixth Circuit to review and reverse Blewett crack retroactivity ruling

As expected, feds ask full Sixth Circuit to review and reverse Blewett crack retroactivity ruling

As covered via a number posts on this blog, a split Sixth Circuit panel decided in Blewett, based on Equal Protection principles, that the new lower statutory mandatory-minimum thresholds for crack offenses established in the Fair Sentencing Act are applicable in motions to reduce otherwise-final sentences for incarcerated offenders.  (The Blewett panel ruling was first discussed in this post, and further here and here.) 

As predicted in these posts, the federal government is not happy with this ruling, and late Friday it finally filed a petition for rehearing en banc.  Here is the opening paragraph of the argument section from that filing, which can be downloaded below:

The majority’s holding is legally incorrect, in conflict with prior Sixth Circuit decisions, in conflict with the law of every other circuit, and inconsistent with Dorsey.  Moreover, the effect of the decision will be widespread if it is allowed to stand.  The panel majority’s core reasoning is seriously flawed in multiple respects, but two central errors highlight the need for en banc consideration.  Download Blewett_petition for rehearing

I would be truly shocked if the full Sixth Circuit did not grant this petition for rehearing.  Indeed, in my view the only real procedural questions now are (1) how long will it take the full Sixth Circuit to grant the petition, and (2) what kind of briefing and argument schedule will be set for this important case.  (I would urge the Sixth Circuit to give plenty of time for briefing because I know that a number of public policy groups are likely to be eager to file amicus briefs in this matter.)

As I briefly explained in my first post on Blewett, I think a Fifth Amendment equal protection theory used by the majority in the Blewett panel decision provides a very shaky constitutional foundation for giving the new crack statutory sentences of the FSA retroactive effect.  But I also think, in the wake of the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act and the USSC's implementation of its new 18-1 crack guidelines retroactively, that a proper application of the Eighth Amendment could provide a more reasoned and reasonable basis to give full retroactive effect to all the provisions of the FSA.

Related posts on Blewett:

• On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences
• "Crackheaded Ruling by Sixth Circuit"
• How quickly can and will (hundreds of) imprisoned crack defendants file "Blewett claims"?
• Two weeks later, has there been any significant and noteworthy Blewett blowback?

Two weeks later, has there been any significant and noteworthy Blewett blowback?

As first discussed in this post and further here and here, a split panel of the Sixth Circuit two weeks ago handed down a significant (and questionable) ruling in US v. Blewett declaring that the reduced mandatory minimum crack sentences set out in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 must be applied even to those offenders sentenced before the Act's effective date.  This ruling means that still-imprisoned crack defendants sentenced in the two decades before the FSA can now seek a reduction in their mandatory minimum sentences under the FSA's new terms, at least if they were originally sentenced in the Sixth Circuit.

Right after the ruling there was reasonable and justified speculation that the federal prosecutors would quickly move for the full Sixth Circuit to review and reverse the Blewett decision en banc.  Indeed, I expected that we a petition for rehearing en banc would be filed within a matter of days.  But here it is nearly two weeks later, and I am still awaiting any report of a DOJ en banc filing in response to Blewett.  I believe it is still likely that such a petition will be coming down the pike very soon, but the delay so far now has me wondering and speculating as to whether the feds might just decide to seek summary reversal of Blewett in the US Supreme Court rather than just fight this consequential fight in the Sixth Circuit.

Meanwhile, though I predicted in this post that there could be hundreds, if not thousand, of Blewett claims brought by incarcerated federal crack offenders convicted within the Sixth Circuit, as of this writing I have not seen any reports or evidence of significant efforts by significant numbers of defendants to get some relief from Blewett.  I did find, thanks to Westlaw, a notable ruling by Judge Tarnow in the Eastern District of Michigan granting relief to a defendant based on Blewett in US v. Frost, No. 08–20537–4, 2013 WL 2250768 (ED Mich May 22, 2013), noting that Cecil Frost only now can get resentenced "because the Sixth Circuit Court's ruling in Blewett cures [the] unjust outcome" that precluded his resentencing because he had been sentenced before the effective date of the FSA.

It is hard to assess at this stage whether Frost represents the tip of a large Blewett-resentencing ice berg, or instead that Frost is a rare case involving a defendant and a district judge eager and able to operationalize Blewett quickly.  The question in the title of this post is an effort to seek help from practioners and others to figure out whether and how Blewett blowback might be brewing.

Related posts on Blewett:

• On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences
• "Crackheaded Ruling by Sixth Circuit"
• How quickly can and will (hundreds of) imprisoned crack defendants file "Blewett claims"?

DC Circuit allows suit against US Sentencing Commission for limiting crack relief to go forward

In an interesting (and ground-breaking?) unanimous panel ruling that should make fans of Henry M. Hart and Herbert Wechsler smile, the DC Circuit today ruling that a crack defendant's civil rights lawsuit against the US Sentencing Commission could go forward. The notable ruling in Davis v. US Sentencing Commission, No. 11-5264 (DC Cir. May 28, 2013) (available here), gets started this way:

Appellant Brian Davis was sentenced to prison for crimes involving powder and crack cocaine before Congress and the Sentencing Commission took steps to reduce the disparity in sentencing ranges between the two.  Unfortunately for Davis, these efforts were directed at crimes involving lesser amounts of cocaine than his.  In a suit that seeks declaratory relief and possibly damages, Davis claims that these efforts violate the Equal Protection Clause because they do not reach his crimes.  This appeal does not take up the merits of Davis’s claims, but their form.  The district court dismissed his suit on the ground that the only relief available to Davis is in habeas.  For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

I nearly fell out of my desk chair when I read the last word of the last line of this opening paragraph, and the rest of the opinion surprised me as well.  In order to reach its conclusion, the DC Circuit panel (1) had to reverse an established circuit precedent based on intervening Supreme Court rulings and also (2) had to rule that the district court erred when concluding the claim made by Davis against the USSC was “patently insubstantial.”

In the end, because Davis v. USSC is a narrow procedural ruling, it still remains very unlikely Davis will ultimately prevail in his suit, and I also doubt that this ruling today by the DC Circuit will prove to be all that consequential.  Nevertheless, I think for Fed Court fans, as well as sentencing fans, the opinion in Davis v. USSC is today's must-read.

How quickly can and will (hundreds of) imprisoned crack defendants file "Blewett claims"?

As first discussed in this post and further here, a split panel of the Sixth Circuit on Friday handed down a significant (and questionable) ruling in US v. Blewett declaring that the reduced mandatory minimum crack sentences set out in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 must be applied even to those offenders sentenced before the Act’s effective date.  This ruling could means still-imprisoned crack defendants sentenced in the two decades before the FSA could now seek a reduction in their mandatory minimum sentences under the FSA's new terms, at least if they were originally sentenced in the Sixth Circuit.

Though this ruling seems very likely to be appealed by the Justice Department, right now it is the law of the (Sixth Circuit) land. Notable, the folks at FAMM have already created this webpage with a basic explanation about what Blewett means and does not mean.  Here is part of what it says:

Blewett can only help federal (not state) prisoners who (1) were convicted in a federal court in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee, AND (2) received a mandatory minimum sentence for a crack cocaine offense, AND (3) were sentenced before August 3, 2010.  The case cannot help people convicted in state courts or federal prisoners whose cases did not involve crack cocaine....

We expect that the government will ask the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review this opinion.  If it does, and the full appeals court agrees to the review, we expect the Blewett decision to be stayed until the full court hears it.  This means that courts will not be allowed to resentence anyone using the Blewett opinion unless and until it is affirmed. We do not know how long the appeal will take, how soon it will happen, or what the outcome will be.  This opinion could be reversed, in which case it would not help anyone....

If you or a loved one are a federal prisoner serving a pre-FSA crack cocaine mandatory minimum sentence, and you were sentenced in federal court before August 3, 2010, in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee, call your attorney and ask them if Blewett could help you.  FAMM cannot tell you if you might benefit if the Blewett decision stands, and we cannot give you legal help or advice. You and your loved ones should talk to your attorneys.

A little bit of very rough data analysis from a variety of US Sentencing Commission publications indicates that there may still be as many as 20,000 federal prisoners currently in BOP custody serving pre-FSA mandatory minimum crack sentences, and that the Sixth Circuit has historically been responsible for about 10% of nationwide crack sentences.  That means that perhaps two thousand or more imprisoned federal defendants might reasonably file what I will can a "Blewett claim" in the district courts of the Sixth Circuit. 

Even if my data estimates are off somewhat, there are certainly many hundreds now imprisoned federal defendants, persons who were sentenced to mandatory minimum crack terms in the Sixth Circuit before August 2010, who could (and I think should) file claims ASAP that they are now entitled to resentencing under the terms of the FSA due to the Blewett ruling. I suspect that not all that many defendants or lawyers were busy drafting Blewett claims this weekend, but I also suspect that time may be of the essence for defendants eager to take advantage of this ruling while it is still good law.

Related posts on Blewett:

• On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences
• "Crackheaded Ruling by Sixth Circuit"

"Crackheaded Ruling by Sixth Circuit"

The title of this post is the headline of this new commentary by Ed Whelan at the National Review Online concerning yesterday's suprising split panel ruling by the Sixth Circuit in US v. Blewett, No. 12-5226 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013) (opinion here; my commentary here).  Here are excerpts from Whelan's take:

[I]n an opinion that will likely surprise all nine justices, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled (in United States v. Blewett) that the more lenient sentences of the Fair Sentencing Act apply to all crack-cocaine offenders, including those who were sentenced before the Act’s effective date. The justices will be much less surprised to discover that the opinion was authored by Gilbert S. Merritt Jr. and joined by Boyce F. Martin Jr., two Carter appointees who have plagued the Sixth Circuit for more than three decades. It’s notable that the thorough dissent comes not from a Republican appointee but from Clinton appointee Ronald Lee Gilman....

Under [the panel majority's] illogic, once it becomes known that a law has a (constitutionally permissible) racially disparate impact, the maintenance of that law would suddenly be transformed into intentional discrimination. As Judge Gilman observes, there is no support for such a proposition.

As Judge Gilman spells out, there is much more that is wrong with the majority opinion, from the fact that it rules on an “unbriefed and unargued issue” to its multiple violations of circuit precedent. Let’s see if the en banc Sixth Circuit will repair the damage or will instead leave it to the Supreme Court to do so.

Unsurprisingly, folks at the ACLU and FAMM have a much different perspective on the Sixth Circuit panel majority's work in Blewett.  Here are the titles and links to the press releases coming from these groups:

• from the ACLU here, "Appeals Court Says Fair Sentencing Act Applies Retroactively"
• from the FAMM here, "Don't Appeal Crack Fairness Ruling, FAMM Tells DOJ"

For legal, policy and practical reasons, it should be very intriguing to watch closely just where, when and how the Justice Department and others are going to argue that the majority in Blewett really blew it.

Related post:

• On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences

On (wrong?) constitutional grounds, split Sixth Circuit panel gives full retroactive effect to new FSA crack sentences

With thanks to all the folks who alerted me while I was dealing with other matters, I am finally back on-line and able to report on a remarkable new split panel ruling by the Sixth Circuit today in US v. Blewett, No. 12-5226 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013) (available here). The start of the majority opinion (per Judge Merritt) will highlight for all federal sentencing fans why this ruling is a very big deal:

This is a crack cocaine case brought by two currently incarcerated defendants seeking retroactive relief from racially discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences imposed on them in 2005.  The Fair Sentencing Act was passed in August 2010 to “restore fairness to Federal cocaine sentencing” laws that had unfairly impacted blacks for almost 25 years.  The Fair Sentencing Act repealed portions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that instituted a 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine, treating one gram of crack as equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine for sentencing purposes.  The 100-to-1 ratio had long been acknowledged by many in the legal system to be unjustified and adopted without empirical support.  The Fair Sentencing Act lowered the ratio to a more lenient 18-to-1 ratio.  However, thousands of inmates, most black, languish in prison under the old, discredited ratio because the Fair Sentencing Act was not made explicitly retroactive by Congress.

In this case, we hold, inter alia, that the federal judicial perpetuation of the racially discriminatory mandatory minimum crack sentences for those defendants sentenced under the old crack sentencing law, as the government advocates, would violate the Equal Protection Clause, as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment by the doctrine of Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (Fifth Amendment forbids federal racial discrimination in the same way as the Fourteenth Amendment forbids state racial discrimination).  As Professor William J. Stuntz, the late Harvard criminal law professor, has observed, “persistent bias occurred with respect to the contemporary enforcement of drug laws where, in the 1990s and early 2000s, blacks constituted a minority of regular users of crack cocaine but more than 80 percent of crack defendants.”  The Collapse of American Criminal Justice 184 (2011).  He recommended that we “redress that discrimination” with “the underused concept of ‘equal protection of the laws.’” Id. at 297.

In this opinion, we will set out both the constitutional and statutory reasons the old, racially discriminatory crack sentencing law must now be set aside in favor of the new sentencing law enacted by Congress as the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.  The Act should apply to all defendants, including those sentenced prior to its passage.  We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for resentencing.

The start of the dissent (per Judge Gilman) will highlight for all federal sentencing fans why this ruling seems sure to get en banc and/or Supreme Court review:

I fear that my panel colleagues have sua sponte set sail into the constitutional sea of equal protection without any legal ballast to keep their analysis afloat.  To start with, they “readily acknowledge that no party challenges the constitutionality of denying retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act to people who were sentenced under the old regime.” Maj. Op. 6. Opining on this unbriefed and unargued issue is thus fraught with the likelihood of running aground on the shoals of uncharted territory.

As the title of my post hints, though I really like the effort, I am not sure a Fifth Amendment equal protection theory provides a strong constitutional foundation for giving the new crack sentences retroactive effect.  But I have long thought, in the wake of the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act and the USSC's implementation of its new 18-1 crack guidelines retroactively, that a proper application of the Eighth Amendment could and should provided a reasoned and reasonable basis to give full retroactive effect to all the provisions of the FSA.

If (dare I say, when) this notable Blewett ruling gets subject to further review, I hope to have a chance to fully explicate (perhaps via an amicus brief) my Eighth Amendment approach to reaching the conclusions reached by the majority here on distinct constitutional grounds. In the meantime, we have an interesting Friday ruling to debate through the weekend.

Seventh Circuit rejects claims that district judge should reject new 18:1 guideline crack ratio

The Seventh Circuit handed down an interesting decision today in US v. Matthews, No. 11-3121 (7th Cir. Dec. 4, 2012) (available here), in response to a defendant's claim that he should be sentenced based on a 1:1 powder/crack cocaine ratio rather than the 18:1 ratio now reflected in the revised sentencing guidelined. Here is a key section of the start of the panel's discussion in Matthews:

On appeal Matthews challenges two aspects of his sentence. First, he argues that the district court committed procedural error by treating the 18:1 crack-topowder sentencing ratio in the guidelines as binding. Second, he claims that the court’s decision to adhere to that ratio created unwarranted sentence disparities because other judges in the same district used a 1:1 ratio in like cases. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (instructing district courts to consider whether a sentence results in “unwarranted sentence disparities”).

We reject these arguments and affirm. The district court commented on the drug-quantity ratio in direct response to Matthews’s argument that the court should follow the lead of other judges in the district and impose a belowguidelines sentence based on a 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio. The judge declined to do so, deferring instead to the 18:1 policy adopted in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the corresponding amendments to the guidelines. Although the judge adopted a highly deferential stance toward the judgment of Congress and the Sentencing Commission, there is no indication that he misunderstood his discretion to use a different ratio. Matthews’s argument to the contrary is implausible this far removed from United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109 (2007), and Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009). Moreover, the judge’s decision to adhere to the ratio endorsed by Congress and the Commission does not make the resulting withinguidelines sentence unreasonable merely because other judges in the district exercised their discretion to use a different ratio. A sentence disparity that results from another judge’s policy disagreement with the guidelines is not “unwarranted” under § 3553(a)(6).

Eleventh Circuit clarifies which defendants can benefit from new crack guidelines

The Eleventh Circuit issued a little, but still important, sentencing opinion in US v. Liberse, No. 12-10243 (11th Cir. July 30, 2012) (available here) to clarify just which defendants can now benefit from the new reduced crack guidelines. Here is how the opinion starts:

This is the third decision we have issued in the past month concerning the application of Amendments 750 and 759 to the sentencing guidelines and the scope of a district court’s authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  In the first two decisions, we held that those amendments did not authorize a court to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) if the defendant’s guidelines range remained the statutory mandatory minimum after the amendments or if the guidelines range was otherwise not affected by the amendments.  See United States v. Glover, — F.3d —, No. 12-10580, 2012 WL 2814303, at *3–4 (11th Cir. July 11, 2012) (statutory mandatory minimum); United States v. Lawson, — F.3d —, No. 11-15912, 2012 WL 2866265, at *2–3 (11th Cir. July 13, 2012) (otherwise unchanged guidelines range).  Our decisions in Glover and Lawson establish that “a court cannot use an amendment to reduce a sentence in a particular case unless that amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that case.” Glover, 2012 WL 2814303, at *3.

This appeal raises a different issue because the pro se appellant’s original guidelines range of 121 to 151 months was above, and thus not affected by, the applicable statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months.  As a result, Amendments 750 and 759 would reduce his guidelines range.  For those reasons, § 3582(c)(2) gives the district court authority to reduce the sentence in its discretion.  Because the court believed it lacked that authority, we vacate its order denying the motion for resentencing and remand for the court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence.

"Changed crack sentencing rules leave a justice system in flux"

The title of this post is the headline of this effective article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune which provides an in-depth review of all the challenges posed by the implementation of the new reduced federal sentencing guidelines for crack.  Here are excerpts:

Carlos Lamont Cleveland, 39, was jailed in 1995 on charges that he was the "right-hand man to the leader of a large and violent drug-trafficking organization" that distributed crack cocaine in Minnesota. But his sister stood by him as he kept challenging his 300-month sentence. This week, she got the news from her brother she had been waiting for: Cleveland would be returning home on Friday.

New sentencing rules that took effect on Tuesday made Cleveland one of more than 1,800 prisoners eligible for release right away, federal officials said. Creature comforts of a full-size bed, a freshly painted room and a bouquet of welcome-home balloons will await him in his hometown of Detroit....

Nationwide, more than 500 people were released from custody on Tuesday, the Federal Bureau of Prisons said. In Minnesota, the change in the guidelines will mean an early release for 100 to 150 inmates who were convicted of crack cocaine crimes. The change is eventually expected to benefit 12,000 U.S. inmates, reducing sentences by an average of three years....

For the past few months, U.S. probation officers, federal defenders and federal prosecutors in Minnesota have been combing through hundreds of court files in an effort to find inmates who may be eligible for release under the new retroactive sentencing rules....

Hundreds of files fill a space in the federal public defender's office that they jokingly call the "crack room," Roe said. At least two lawyers review each file. "The last thing we want to do is miss somebody," she said.

So far, they've found 21 candidates for "immediate release," Roe said. But the number is still in flux. The U.S. attorney's office said it has identified 28 potential candidates for immediate release; the Probation Office said it might be somewhat fewer than that.

So far, orders have been signed for just four that reduced their sentences to time served. In addition to Cleveland, who got a 29- month reduction, they include Paris Lamar Wilson, sentenced in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, possession and use of a firearm related to drug trafficking; Bobby Woods, sentenced in 2001 on charges of conspiracy and possession of cocaine base, and Steven Mitchell Gant, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges of conspiracy and possession of cocaine base, cocaine and ecstasy.

The orders give the Bureau of Prisons 10 days to release the inmates. Jeanne Cooney, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota, said under the law, the bureau gets time to notify victims in some cases or even local law enforcement. The offenders will remain subject to post- prison "supervised release" even if, in effect, they served excess time under the new guidelines.

Some of the inmates affected by the changes have been imprisoned long after the time they would've been released had the new rules been in place when they were originally sentenced, Roe said. Two are already under electronic monitoring in their homes. Others are in half-way houses because they were already transitioning back into society as they neared the end of their original sentence.

Chief U.S. Probation Officer Kevin Lowry said some inmates who were released early after the first guidelines change experienced "a little bit of culture shock" at their sudden release. "Some did indicate that they had anxiety about being back in the community sooner than they expected," he said. Kerns said probation officers worked hard then and are working hard now to connect the outgoing offenders with social services to ensure they have a place to stay, as well as educational and employment opportunities. "That's what we'll continue to focus on, successful re-entry into the community and helping these folks turn back into successful, law abiding lifestyles," he said.

"Sentencing Guidelines for Crack Cocaine Offenses Are Now Officially Less Appalling"

The title of this post comes from the fitting headline from this Reason entry, which summarizes today's major federal sentencing news with the fulsome (and fitting?) dose of cynicism:

For all the disappointment (or just low expectations confirmed) about the Obama administration and the drug war, especially with the current crack-downs on medical marijuana, it's nice to remember the one damn thing Obama has done on this front in his three years: reduce the harsh sentencing disparity of crack cocaine offenses compared with powder.

These guidelines, passed in June, are about to officially do some good for those already in jail -- hopefully.

Reuters:

Up to 1,800 inmates are immediately eligible to go free and prison officials are processing a growing number of release orders, said Chris Burke, a spokesman for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. "The pace has picked up in the last couple of weeks and we don't expect it to abate any time soon," he said.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated this summer that about 12,000 inmates could be eligible to seek a reduced sentence, with the impact spread over decades. The average reduction in sentence would be 37 months.

People suffering three fewer years behind bars certainly is a cause for celebration. And the reduction of sentencing minimums for crack -- which, for example, treated 5 grams of crack the same as 500 grams of cocaine -- is decades overdue.

But don't get to optimistic about Obama.  Crack is still worth 18 times what powder cocaine is, for some reason.

And none of these folks are out yet.  There's still many exciting bureaucratic hoops to jump through before Hamedah Hasan and others get their lives back.  The drug war continues, and the Obama White House isn't particularly interested in letting anyone's youthful experiments with substances -- besides the president's -- slide.

Eleventh Circuit now to review en banc FSA pipeline sentencing issue

Regular readers may recall this post and this post from this past summer discussing the important Eleventh Circuit panel ruling in US v. Rojas declaring that the reduced statutory crack sentencing terms of the Fair Sentencing Act apply "to defendants who committed crack cocaine offenses before August 3, 2010, the date of its enactment, but who are sentenced thereafter."  Today, the Eleventh Circuit released this new order in Rojas indicating that this issue is now going to be examined by the full Eleventh Circuit en banc.

I am disappointed (but not all that surprised) that the full Eleventh Circuit does not have better things to do than to re-review the application of the FSA's new, more fair mandatory minimum terms to a few more federal defendants.  After all, since the Rojas ruling, both the Attorney General (as detailed here) and the Third Circuit (in Dixon discussed here) have concluded that the Rojas panel got the law right.  

Moreover, and more importantly, the Rojas panel ruling does not require that district judges give lower sentences to the most aggravated crack offenses, rather it simply allows district judges to consider lower sentences for the most mitigated crack offenses.  But, apparently a majority of judges on the Eleventh Circuit are so fearful of even giving a few more federal defendants even the chance to argue at sentencing for the lower sentences that Congress has now deemed more fair that they have to turn this into a big en banc battle.  (I wonder how much in federal tax dollars are going to be wasted on the federal criminal justice debate over this narrow issue of when exactly crack sentencing is supposed to become fair as Congress has commanded.  Yeesh.)

Some prior posts on this FSA pipeline issue:

• Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
• Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
• Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA to pending cases
• A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
• A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
• Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes
• Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Judge Williams makes strongest case for applying FSA to pipeline cases
• First Circuit affirms Douglas, holding lower FSA crack minimums apply in pipeline cases
• Eleventh Circuit panel rules FSA's lower crack terms apply to defendants sentenced after enactment
• Only a year late, AG Holder sees light and reverses course on FSA pipeline sentencing issue
• A (justifiably) sharp reaction to AG Holder's new position on FSA crack pipeline cases
• Third Circuit (joining First and Eleventh Circuits) applies FSA lower mandatory minimum terms to pipeline cases

"OSU book thief sentenced to probation and restitution"

Because this new piece from the Columbus Dispatch, which has the same headline as this post, strikes very "close to home," I am not going to comment on the substance of this notable story of crime and punishment.  But, especially because I am pretty sure I never met the now-sentenced former-OSU-law student, I am interested in reader reactions:

A former Ohio State University student avoided prison today but likely has forfeited his future as a lawyer for stealing books from the Moritz College of Law.

In a deal that allowed him to escape jail time, Christopher B. Valdes, 24, formerly of the University District but now living with his mother in Florida, was placed on five years of probation and ordered to pay $34,619.88 in restitution for books he sold online.  As of this morning, Valdes has paid back $19,450.

Valdes also agreed that he “will not have or pursue employment or education in the field of law,” according to the details of his guilty plea in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Assistant Prosecutor John Litle said the ban on law school and practice is in place only for the five years of probation.  But Valdes would have to pass character and fitness requirements to become a lawyer.  “As a practical matter ... it’s unlikely that he can do that” because of the felony conviction, Litle said.

Valdes had been indicted on a fourth-degree felony count of theft that could have landed him in prison for up to 18 months.  He pleaded guilty in June to a lesser fifth-degree felony punishable by up to a year in prison.

Valdes, who is no longer a student at Ohio State, was accused by campus police of stealing more than 200 books between November 2009 and last October after advertising them for sale online.  Officers learned of the thefts in August 2010, when the university received an e-mail from a Brazilian lawyer who had bought a volume online and found a crossed-out OSU ink stamp on its inside front cover, according to court documents.

A check confirmed that the title had vanished from the shelves.  Valdes was arrested after police set up a sting involving a hidden camera and a marked book.

Seventh Circuit judges explain their latest views on FSA pipeline cases

Regular readers know that district court and circuit courts have been struggling through (and splitting) on whether the new crack mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act apply in cases involved offenses pre-dating the new law but not yet sentenced.  The Seventh Circuit was the first, and remains the only, circuit to rule expressly that the old harsher 100-1 mandatories still apply to these pipeline cases.  Today, though a set of opinions in US v. Holcomb, No. 11-1558 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2011) (available here), a number of Seventh Circuit judges explain at length their latest thinking on this issue in opinion that accompany an order refusing to reconsider this issue en banc.

There is a lot of interest in these opinion for those like me who have been following this debate closely.  Here are a few snippets, first from the end of Judge Easterbrook's 16-page opinion:

If the President wants to apply the lower min imum and maximum penalt ies to all cases, pending and closed, he has only to issue a general commutation. The pardon power permits the President to achieve retroactive lenience if he is willing to pay the political price. By contrast, the judiciary must implement compromises faithfully, even when most judge s wi sh that the political decision had been different. I have therefore voted not to hear these appeals en banc.

Now from the second paragraph of Judge Williams' 20-page opinion:

Our circuit should have heard this case en banc.  Three other circuits have ruled that judges no longer must impose unfair sentences after the Fair Sentencing Act.  This issue affects pending cases and many c ases to come in light of the five-year statute of limitations on drug prosecutions. There were equal votes to grant and deny rehearing en banc.  So our circuit’s law stands, and it is wrong.

Some prior posts on this FSA pipeline issue: 

• Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
• Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
• Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA to pending cases
• A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
• A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
• Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes
• Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Judge Williams makes strongest case for applying FSA to pipeline cases
• First Circuit affirms Douglas, holding lower FSA crack minimums apply in pipeline cases
• Eleventh Circuit panel rules FSA's lower crack terms apply to defendants sentenced after enactment
• Only a year late, AG Holder sees light and reverses course on FSA pipeline sentencing issue
• A (justifiably) sharp reaction to AG Holder's new position on FSA crack pipeline cases
• Third Circuit (joining First and Eleventh Circuits) applies FSA lower mandatory minimum terms to pipeline cases

"Crack cocaine: One woman's tale"

The title of this post is the headline of this first-person account of the impact of the new crack federal sentencing guidelines appearing in the Chicago Tribune (and forwarded to me by a helpful reader). This piece is authored by Stephanie Nodd, who is in prison in the Coleman Federal Correctional Institution in Florida, and here are excerpts:

Looking back, I know I did something wrong, but I am also sure that I did not need 30 years in prison to learn my lesson.  I am due a second chance, and I plan to make the best of it....

In 1988, just after my 20th birthday, I met a man named John who promised me cash if I helped him set up his new business.  His business was selling crack cocaine. I helped him for a little over a month in return for money I used to pay bills and buy groceries.  After about six weeks, I cut off all ties with John and moved myself and my kids to Boston to start a new life.

We were living in Boston when I was indicted on drug charges in Alabama.  I returned to take responsibility for my mistake.  I prayed I would not have to serve any time because of my clean record and limited involvement.  I could not have been more wrong....

I could not give the prosecutors any information because I did not know anyone.... Meanwhile, John cooperated against everyone, including me. I was eventually charged as a manager in the drug conspiracy and found guilty at trial.  Even though I did not have a criminal record, I was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison.  The year was 1990. George H.W. Bush was president, and no one knew what email was.  I was 23 years old.

I have spent the last two decades behind bars.  Whenever new corrections officers ask me what my sentence is and I tell them 30 years, their first question is always the same: "Who did you kill?"

Earlier this year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to reduce penalties for crack cocaine crimes.  On June 30, the commission voted to apply the new reforms to people serving the long prison sentences required by the old law.  Some people, including some members of Congress, are against retroactivity because they think it will give dangerous criminals a break.  As someone who has already served 21 years in federal prison for a first-time, nonviolent crack offense, I think it's important for the public to get a different perspective.

The truth is that many people are serving sentences that are far longer than I believe is necessary.  I have met women whose husbands, after getting caught selling drugs, turned around and cooperated against their wives in exchange for shorter sentences.  Some of these women had little or no involvement in the drug offense for which they are serving decades in federal prison....

I have tried to stay positive and make the best of a bad situation.  I received my GED, completed college courses and earned other licenses that will allow me to compete for a job when I am finally released.  Thanks to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's vote, I could be released by the end of this year.  I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. I know I am not the same woman who kissed her babies goodbye 21 years ago, but I can't wait to be reunited with my children and to meet my new grandchildren.

Eleventh Circuit panel re-issues (updated) opinion finding FSA lower crack mandatories apply all sentenced after FSA

Regular readers may recall this post a few weeks ago about the important Eleventh Circuit panel ruling in US v. Rojas late last month declaring that the reduced statutory crack sentencing terms of the Fair Sentencing Act apply "to defendants who committed crack cocaine offenses before August 3, 2010, the date of its enactment, but who are sentenced thereafter."  Today, the Eleventh Circuit released a new version of the Rojas opinion, available here, which now starts this way:

We sua sponte modify our previous opinion in this appeal to reflect recent developments in the law of the First and Seventh Circuits. See United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Douglas, No. 10-2341, 2011 WL 2120163 (1st Cir. May 31, 2011).

The issue in this appeal is whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010), applies to defendants who committed crack cocaine offenses before August 3, 2010, the date of its enactment, but who are sentenced thereafter.  We conclude that it does.

Here is what appears to be a key new paragraph from the new Rojas opinion:

We do not disagree with our sister circuits in one major sense — absent further legislative action directing otherwise, the general savings statute prevents a defendant who was sentenced prior to the enactment of the FSA from benefitting from retroactive application.  Further, we share in the well-reasoned view of the First Circuit that Congress intended for the FSA to apply immediately.  See Douglas, 2011 WL 2120163, at *4 (“It seems unrealistic to suppose that Congress strongly desired to put 18:1 guidelines in effect by November 1 even for crimes committed before the FSA but balked at giving the same defendants the benefit of the newly enacted 18:1 mandatory minimums.”).

Some posts on this FSA pipeline issue:

• Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
• Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
• Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA to pending cases
• A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
• A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
• Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes
• Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Judge Williams makes strongest case for applying FSA to pipeline cases
• First Circuit affirms Douglas, holding lower FSA crack minimums apply in pipeline cases
• Eleventh Circuit panel rules FSA's lower crack terms apply to defendants sentenced after enactment

Crackerjack coverage of new crack guidelines and retroactivity decision on USSC website

I am very pleased to see and to report that the US Sentencing Commission's ever-improving website now has this special webpage titled "Materials on Federal Cocaine Offenses."  This new special page provides especially effective and comprehensive coverage of the USSC's decision last week to make its new crack sentencing guideline retroactive.  This new webpage also brings together in one space via links all the most important USSC materials concerning federal crack sentencing law and policy, including a helpful "Reader-Friendly" Version of Amendment on Retroactivity, which becomes effective November 1, 2011.

I sincerely hope that the US Sentencing Commission will continue to build these sorts of specialized pages with collected materials on all hot federal sentencing topics.  I believe additional special pages on the immigration guidelines, the child porn guidelines, the fraud guidelines and others could and would be very helpful to both practitioners and researchers.

US Sentencing Commission makes new crack guidelines retroactive

As detailed in this official press release, as expected the USSC "voted unanimously ... to give retroactive effect to its proposed permanent amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines that implements the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010." Here is more from the Commmission's press release:

Retroactivity of the amendment will become effective on November 1, 2011― the same day that the proposed permanent amendment would take effect ― unless Congress acts to disapprove the amendment. ...

Not every federal crack cocaine offender in federal prison will be eligible for a lower sentence as a result of this decision. The Commission estimates, based on Fiscal Year 2010 sentencing data, that approximately 12,000 offenders may be eligible to seek a sentence reduction.  The average sentence reduction for eligible offenders will be approximately 37 months, and the overall impact on the eligible offender population will occur incrementally over decades.  The average sentence for these offenders, even after reduction, will remain about 10 years.  The Bureau of Prisons estimates that retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 amendment could result in a savings of over $200 million within the first five years after retroactivity takes effect.

The Commission’s vote to give retroactive application to the proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines does not give retroactive effect to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Only Congress can make a statute retroactive.  Many crack offenders will still be required under federal law to serve mandatory five- or 10-year sentences because of the amount of crack cocaine involved in their offenses.....

A federal sentencing judge will make the final determination of whether an offender is eligible for a lower sentence and by how much that sentence should be lowered in accordance with instruction given by the Commission.  The ultimate determination will be made only after consideration of many factors, including the Commission’s instruction to consider whether reducing an offender’s sentence would pose a risk to public safety.

This New York Times report on the decision provides some notable quotes in reaction:

Calling the difference between crack and powder “cultural, not chemical,” Jim E. Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said that the old sentencing policy placed the heaviest penalties on minorities and the poor.  “A civilized society doesn’t mete out punishment based on a defendant’s culture or skin color,” Mr. Lavine said....

A number of lawmakers had opposed retroactive sentence reductions, arguing that they would endanger communities. Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California, said in an interview that he was “very disappointed” in the commission. Mr. Lungren said he supported the 2010 law in part because it was not retroactive.  “That was not our intent,” he said.

Some recent related posts:

• USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
• Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity
• Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive
• Lamar Smith's (deeply misguided) statement about crack retroactivity debate
• Informed criticisms of Justice Department's proposed limitation on crack retroactivity
• US Sentencing Commission slated this week to vote on new FSA crack guideline retroactivity
• US Sentencing Commission voting today on making new FSA crack guidelines retroactive

US Sentencing Commission voting today on making new FSA crack guidelines retroactive

As previously noted here and as indicated in this official public notice, this afternoon at a public meeting, the US Sentencing Commission will vote on whether and how to make the new reduced crack offense federal sentencing guidelines applicable retroactively to previously sentencing defendants.  The new guidelines reflect the 18-1 quantity ratio between crack and powder cocaine quantities that became the new federal sentencing standard after the Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

As I have detailed in prior posts (some of which are linked below), a decision to make the crack guidelines retroactive would potentially impact the sentences of many thousands of federal prisoners, and this fact has made this issue a subject of considerable controversy.  Still, the smart money is on the Sentencing Commission voting to make the new crack guidelines retroactive with a few (but not too many) limitations on which previously sentencing defendants can get the benefit of the new lower guidelines.

A few related posts on this particular retroactivity decision before the USSC are linked below, and readers interested in a broader understanding of the FSA should check out this February 2011 issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter on the FSA and those interested in a broader discussion of the last round of crack retroactivity should check out this April 2008 FSR issue on crack retroactivity:

• USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
• Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity
• Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive
• Lamar Smith's (deeply misguided) statement about crack retroactivity debate
• Informed criticisms of Justice Department's proposed limitation on crack retroactivity
• US Sentencing Commission slated this week to vote on new FSA crack guideline retroactivity

I will be on the road and likely off-line until very late tonight, but the folks at FAMM are all over this issue, as evidenced by this new item on FAMM's homepage:

Today! Historic Sentencing Commission vote on retroactivity

At 1 p.m., the U.S. Sentencing Commission will vote on retroactivity of the crack guidelines.  FAMM's Mary Price told the Associated Press, "there is a tremendous amount of hope out there ... there is a potential that people could see their sentences reduced, some quite dramatically."  Learn more -- read FAMM's latest factsheet, "Myths and Facts on Crack Guideline Retroactivity" and other resources.  FAMM will also report live from the vote on Twitter.

Washington Post editorial urges full retroactivity for new lower crack guidelines

The Washington Post has this new editorial headlined "A step backward in crack cocaine sentencing," which criticized the Justice Department for advocating limits on which past offenders get the benefits of the new lower federal sentencing guidelines for crack.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has been tasked with developing sentencing guidelines for the new crack law and last week took up the issue of whether the reduced penalties may be applied retroactively.  The Justice Department endorsed retroactivity but argued that crack offenders who had been convicted of a gun charge and those with longer criminal histories should not be allowed to seek lower sentences.  While we appreciate the department’s legitimate public safety concerns, we do not believe this approach is warranted.

The most important reason to set aside the Justice Department’s approach is fairness. The old crack laws were draconian — and that is true whether they were applied to a first-time offender or to someone who also was found to be in possession of a weapon.

Concerns over public safety can be — and have been — addressed through other means. The most serious criminals and those deemed violent “career” offenders are not among the 13,000 or so inmates eligible for a potential sentence reduction.  Moreover, no sentence could be reduced until a judge evaluates an inmate’s record and signs off on the reduction.  The judge would have the authority to reduce only the penalties associated with the crack violations; penalties for other offenses, including gun infractions, would remain intact.

Federal judges have a good record in making such judgment calls.  Judges rejected some 36 percent of requests for reduced sentences after the commission tweaked the crack guidelines in 2007 and permitted retroactive reductions.  The commission recently documented that those who were released after their sentences were shortened recorded recidivism rates that were slightly lower than typical.  Those with longer records or gun convictions were not automatically excluded from consideration, and they shouldn’t be this time around, either.

Recent related posts:

• USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
• Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity
• Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive
• Lamar Smith's (deeply misguided) statement about crack retroactivity debate
• Informed criticisms of Justice Department's proposed limitation on crack retroactivity

Informed criticisms of Justice Department's proposed limitation on crack retroactivity

I have received feedback from a a number of informed and thoughtful folks that there are real problems with the Justice Department's proposed limits on who should get the retroactive benefits of the new lower crack guidelines (basics here).  Margaret Colgate Love gave me permission to reprint her comments on this score here:

The Justice Department's proposal to categorically disqualify from relief individuals with a criminal history score higher than 3, and anyone in a lower criminal history category whose sentence was enhanced for gun possession, would weed out upwards of 60% of those otherwise eligible for early release.  It would also reduce the projected savings by as much as 70%, since those in higher criminal history categories would potentially qualify for a much larger reduction in their prison terms.  Many witnesses [at the USSC hearing on June 1] -- as well as several Commissioners -- pointed out that criminal history category or gun bump is an imperfect proxy for dangerousness or likely recidivism.  For example, the Commission's new recidivism study of the 2007 crack releasees shows that CH 4 has a lower recidivism rate than CH 3.  Also, it can be pretty easy to get into a high criminal history category with very minor priors, and guns are frequently attributed to defendants who never touched much less fired them.

The comparatively low recidivism rates of those released under the 2-level drop enacted in 2007 in every criminal history category indicates that the judges who made case-by-case decisions under that authority did a good job of weeding out individuals who were likely to be a danger upon release.  Almost everyone who testified [at the USSC hearing] thought judges could be relied upon to make these decisions again with the smaller cohort of individuals eligible for release under the new guidelines.  As if more were needed to discredit the Justice Department's recommendation, the Acting Director of BOP departed from his written testimony to remark on the management and public safety problems that might be created by disqualifying so many prisoners from a shot at early release when they have been working hard to earn it.

Recent related posts:

• USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
• Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity
• Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive
• Lamar Smith's (deeply misguided) statement about crack retroactivity debate

UPDATE:  Margaret Love also passed along for posting another informed observer's reflections on the USSC crack retroactivity hearing:

As you may have heard, Attorney General Holder was the first witness.  He stated that DOJ favors retroactivity with limitations.  DOJ would exclude those in Criminal History Categories IV, V and VI, and anyone with a weapon enhancement or a weapon conviction (e.g., 924(c)). (This would be well over half of the 12,000 or so inmates that the Commission believes to be eligible.)  After he left, the US Attorney for Northern Iowa elaborated on the Department’s position in her testimony.  The Commissioners grilled her on how these limitations (especially those based on criminal history) could be so important to public safety for those already sentenced when the Department did not request them prospectively. Her answers did not seem to satisfy the Commissioners.

She also was pressed hard on a broader recommendation to the Commission that it make retroactivity even more rare in the future given that judges can always vary to account for problems that the Commission later decides to fix.  This was not well received either, partly because the same logic should have led the Department to oppose retroactivity for the FSA amendments and partly because it would require the Commission to admit that it has become nearly irrelevant in the sentencing process.

It is always hard to predict based on questions at a hearing,... but I suspect that the Commission will rely on the favorable 2007 experience to make the current amendments retroactive without exclusions.  They also seemed to see a need to clarify the circumstances when it may not be appropriate to grant a reduction (i.e., the language it now has about the general inappropriateness of a reduction if the original sentence was a downward variance under 3553(a)).  The purpose there was to avoid a double dip in those cases where the judge already applied a ratio at least as favorable to the defendant as 18:1.  Because the person best situated to know whether that will be an issue is the sentencing judge, we asked the Commission to clarify the purpose so that judges can do their jobs.  I suspect that it will.

In addition, Michael O'Hear has still more observations on the hearing at his Life Sentences blog here and FAMM's twitter feed has even more on the hearing.

Lamar Smith's (deeply misguided) statement about crack retroactivity debate

Via the Main Justice blog I came across a notable, and in my view deeply misguided, statement issued by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith concerning today's US Sentencing Commission hearing about whether to make its new crack guidelines retroactive. Here is the statement:

“The Sentencing Commission is poised to once again overstep its role and enforce laws not as enacted by Congress, but as the Sentencing Commission believes they should be enacted.  Congress did not create the Sentencing Commission to legislate or amend the laws passed by Congress.  But that is precisely what the Commission is considering with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.  Nothing in the Act nor in the congressional record implies that Congress ever intended that the new crack cocaine guidelines should be applied retroactively.  And yet, the Sentencing Commission may release thousands of crack traffickers before they have fully served their sentences.

“I’m also disappointed by the Obama administration’s position supporting the release of dangerous drug offenders.  It shows that they are more concerned with wellbeing of criminals than with the safety of our communities.  This sends a dangerous message to criminals and would-be drug offenders that Congress doesn’t take drug crimes seriously.

“The members of the Sentencing Commission are unelected and therefore are not accountable to the American people.  Time and again, the Sentencing Commission has chosen to usurp the authority of Congress and impose its will on our communities.  It is time for Congress to restore accountability to our sentencing laws and ensure that the Sentencing Commission cannot continue to create law without Congressional approval.”

There are so many troubling aspects of this statement with respect to the work of the US Sentencing Commission, I am not sure where to begin.  Most critically, everything that the US Sentencing Commission does is always subject to subsequent rejection by Congress, so the notion that the USSC does lots of stuff without at least tacit congressional approval is just wrong.  More specifically, there are in fact parts to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and lots in the congressional record to suggest that Congress did expect and intend that the new crack cocaine guidelines could and should be applied retroactively by the USSC. 

As for the pot-shots at the Obama Administration, this rhetoric is even worse and even more irresponsible.  As reported here, the Obama Administration's position on crack retroactivity is expressly that "dangerous drug offenders" should not get the benefit of the new lower crack guidelines.  Moreover, to assert that Justice Department is "more concerned with wellbeing of criminals than with the safety of our communities" itself sends a "dangerous message" that the House Judiciary Chair doesn’t take seriously the challenge of responsible public policy decision-making and instead has a greater interest in sound-bite demagoguery.

Recent related posts:

• USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
• Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity
• Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive

Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive

June kicks off with big US Sentencing Commission doings:  the agency today has been conducting a full-day hearing to consider whether and how its new reduced crack sentencing guidelines prompted by the Fair Sentencing Act should be made retroactive.  A few weeks ago, the USSC released this impact analysis of what FSA crack guidelines retroactivity might be, and late yesterday the USSC posted this recidivism analysis reporting on its study of the reoffense rates for offenders who got released a bit earlier from prison due to the last round of reduced crack guidelines that were made retroactive.

Meanwhile, as reported in this Bloomberg piece, Attorney General Eric Holder personally testified before the USSC this morning and he indicated support for (partial) retroactivity of the new reduced crack guidelines:

Holder described the Obama administration’s position today at a hearing before the U.S. Sentencing Commission in Washington, which establishes sentencing policies and is considering whether the shorter sentences should be retroactive.  Applying the measure to those previously sentenced could affect about 12,000 inmates....

“We believe that the imprisonment terms of those sentenced pursuant to the old statutory disparity -- who are not considered dangerous drug offenders -- should be alleviated to the extent possible to reflect the new law,” Holder said.  Retroactive reductions in sentences shouldn’t apply to those who possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes or offenders with “significant” criminal histories, Holder said.

The full text of AG Holder's written testimony and of many others testifying today before the USSC are linked from this page.  Here is a key passage from AG Holder's testimony:

The Commission’s Sentencing Guidelines already make clear that retroactivity of the guideline amendment is inappropriate when its application poses a significant risk to public safety -- and the Administration agrees.  In fact, we believe certain dangerous offenders -- including those who have possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes and those who have significant criminal histories -- should be categorically prohibited from receiving the benefits of retroactivity, a step beyond current Commission policy.

The Administration’s suggested approach to retroactivity of the amendment recognizes Congressional intent in the Fair Sentencing Act to differentiate dangerous and violent drug offenders and ensure that their sentences are no less than those originally set.  However, we believe that the imprisonment terms of those sentenced pursuant to the old statutory disparity -- who are not considered dangerous drug offenders -- should be alleviated to the extent possible to reflect the new law.

This effort by Holder and DOJ to differentiate dangerous and violent drug offenders from non-violent drug offenders seems sound to me (though the devil can and will often be in the details).  I will not be at all surprised if the USSC adopts some version of what the Justice Department is advocating here.

A few related posts on this particular retroactivity decision before the USSC are linked below, and readers interested in a broader understanding of the FSA should check out this February 2011 issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporteron the FSA and those interested in a broader discussion of the last round of crack retroactivity should check out this April 2008 FSR issue on crack retroactivity:

• USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
• Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity

First Circuit affirms Douglas, holding lower FSA crack minimums apply in pipeline cases

I am quite pleased (and a bit surprised) to be able to report this afternoon that a panel of the First Circuit today has unanimously affirmed US District Judge D. Brock Hornby important ruling in US v. Douglas, No. 09-202-P-H (D. Maine Oct. 27, 2010) (opinion here; blogged here), which had concluded that a defendant guilty of committing a crack offense back in 2009 but "not yet sentenced on November 1, 2010, is to be sentenced under the amended Guidelines, and the Fair Sentencing Act‘s altered mandatory minimums apply to such a defendant as well."  Here are a few notable passages from today's big circuit ruling in US v. Douglas, No. 10-234 (1st Cir. May 31, 2011) (available here): 

None of the Supreme Court cases squarely governs this case.  Two of those cases (invoked by Douglas), United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217 (1934), and Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964), overrode section 109 in problematic situations.  While the analytical explanation given in each case has little bearing on this one, the cases do suggest that some sense of the "fair" result, arguably helpful to Douglas in light of the reformist purpose of the FSA, sometimes plays a role in applying section 109. See Goncalves, 2011 WL 1631649, at *6-7.

Perhaps closer to this case from a factual standpoint is Marrero (relied on by the government); it held that Congress' creation of parole eligibility for serious drug offenders, overturning a prior statutory bar, would not apply retroactively to those serving sentences for crimes committed prior to the new statute.  Marrero, 417 U.S. at 663-64. Still, the conflict between an 18:1 guidelines sentence and a 100:1 mandatory minimum may seem to some more pronounced than making the availability of parole depend on whether the prisoner committed the crime before or after an amendment allowed parole.

Further, the imposition now of a minimum sentence that Congress has already condemned as too harsh makes this an unusual case.  It seems unrealistic to suppose that Congress strongly desired to put 18:1 guidelines in effect by November 1 even for crimes committed before the FSA but balked at giving the same defendants the benefit of the newly enacted 18:1 mandatory minimums. The purity of the mandatory minimum regime has always been tempered by charging decisions, assistance departures and other interventions: here, at least, it is likely that Congress would wish to apply the new minimums to new sentences.

Finally, while the rule of lenity does not apply where the statute is "clear," e.g., Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237, 2246 (2009), section 109 is less than clear in many of its interactions with other statutes, and that is arguably true in the present case as well.  Our principal concern here is with the "fair" or "necessary" implication, Marrero, 417 U.S. at 659 n.10; Great N. Ny. Co., 208 U.S. at 465, derived from the mismatch between the old mandatory minimums and the new guidelines and to be drawn from the congressional purpose to ameliorate the cocaine base sentences.  But the rule of lenity, applicable to penalties as well as the definition of crimes, adds a measure of further support to Douglas.

In addition to being very big news for many crack defendants in the First Circuit, this new Douglas ruling creates a crisp circuit split because the Seventh Circuit has come to a different view on this issue and has already rejected en banc review of its ruling that the new lower FSA minimums do not apply to not-yet-sentenced defendants.  Consequently, the oft-needed circuit split to foster SCOTUS review is now in place (and I would not be too surprised if the SG's office seeks cert from this Douglas ruling in light of the Seventh Circuit's contrary opinion).

Some posts on this FSA issue:

• Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
• Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
• Notable new letter to AG Eric Holder concerning application of the FSA
• Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA to pending cases
• A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• Federal sentencing litigation at its absolute finest
• New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
• A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
• Second Circuit demands application of old 100-1 crack mandatories ... with laments
• Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes
• Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Judge Williams makes strongest case for applying FSA to pipeline cases

Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity

The US Sentencing Comission now has posted here this document described as an "Analysis of the Impact of Guideline Implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 if the Amendment Were Applied Retroactively." This Commission document provides an updated estimate of the impact on drug offenders currently incarcerated of any decision to make the new revised crack guidelines retroactive. Here are key snippets from the lengthy document:

On October 15, 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated a temporary, emergency amendment that implemented the emergency directive in section 8 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. On April 6, 2011, the Commission re-promulgated the temporary amendment as a permanent amendment, which will become effective, absent congressional action, on November 1, 2011.  The Commission also voted to publish an issue for comment regarding whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), it should give the amendment retroactive effect, and announced a hearing for June 1, 2011 regarding that issue.  This memorandum estimates the impact on offenders currently incarcerated in the federal prison system of portions of the amendment, if the Commission were to make all of the amendment, or those portions, retroactively applicable....

After accounting for those offenders for whom the sentencing range would not change after application of the FSA Guideline Amendment, the total number of crack cocaine offenders incarcerated on November 1, 2011, who are estimated to be eligible to receive a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is 12,040....

Based on [various] assumptions, the average sentence reduction for all impacted offenders with sufficient information to perform this analysis would be 22.6 percent (or 37 months, from 164 months to 127 months)....  [It appears] that 7,152 offenders (78.1%) would receive a sentence reduction of 48 months or less.  Conversely, 280 offenders (3.1%) would receive a sentence reduction of more than 10 years.

USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines

As detailed in this document described as a "Reader-Friendly Version of the Commission's Request for Comment on Retroactivity," the US Sentencing Commission is now requesting public comment by June 2, 2011, concerning "whether Amendment 2 [of its most recent set of Guideline amendments sent to Congress], pertaining to drug offenses, should be included as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants."  Here is more background and details from this document:

On April 28, 2011, the Commission submitted to the Congress amendments to the sentencing guidelines and official commentary, which become effective on November 1, 2011, unless Congress acts to the contrary.  Such amendments and the reasons for amendment subsequently were published in the Federal Register.  See 76 FR 24960 (May 3, 2011).

Amendment 2, pertaining to drug offenses, has the effect of lowering guideline ranges.... The Commission seeks comment regarding whether, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), this amendment, or any part thereof, should be included in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants.

The Commission also requests comment regarding whether, if it amends §1B1.10(c) to include this amendment, it also should amend §1B1.10 to provide guidance to the courts on the procedure to be used when applying an amendment retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)....

Amendment 2, pertaining to drug offenses, contains three parts.  The Commission seeks comment on whether it should list the entire amendment, or one or more parts of the amendment, in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants.

Part A changes the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This has the effect of lowering guideline ranges for certain defendants for offenses involving crack cocaine.

Part B contains both mitigating and aggravating provisions for offenses involving drugs, regardless of drug type. The mitigating provisions have the effect of lowering guideline ranges for certain defendants in drug cases, and the aggravating provisions have the effect of raising guideline ranges for certain defendants in drug cases.

Part C deletes the cross reference in §2D2.1(b)(1) under which an offender who possessed more than 5 grams of crack cocaine was sentenced under §2D1.1. This has the effect of lowering guideline ranges for certain defendants for offenses involving simple possession of crack cocaine.

For each of these three parts, the Commission requests comment on whether that part should be listed in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied retroactively....

If the Commission does list the entire amendment, or one or more parts of the amendment, in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants, should the Commission provide further guidance or limitations regarding the circumstances in which and the amount by which sentences may be reduced? 

Justice Department, six months later, responds to Senators' inquiry about handling FSA pipeline cases

Thanks to a very helpful reader, I have gotten a copy (and provide for downloading below) of a response from the Justice Department to the letter, dated November 17, 2010, from Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Dick Durbin to Attorney General Eric Holder (blogged here) which urged the Justice Department to "apply [the Fair Sentencing Act's] modified mandatory minimums to all defendants who have not yet been sentenced, including those whose conduct predates the legislation's enactment."  

The response says little more than what the DOJ lawyers have been saying in courts around the country, namely that the Fair Sentencing Act's silence about implementation dates means that the general Savings Statute entails that only conduct after the effective date of the FSA gets the benefit of the new mandatory minimums.  Nevertheless, the letter is an interesting read, especially because it includes as attachments the internal memos sent from Main Justice to all prosecutors about how they should respond to the enactment of the FSA in August 2010 and to the promulgation of revised crack guidelines in November 2011.

Download FSA_Holder_letter_response_042511

Some posts on this FSA issue:

• Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
• Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
• Notable new letter to AG Eric Holder concerning application of the FSA
• Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA to pending cases
• A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• Federal sentencing litigation at its absolute finest
• New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
• A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
• Second Circuit demands application of old 100-1 crack mandatories ... with laments
• Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes

An interesting pro-Reagan spin on crack-powder federal sentencing reform

The Heritage Foundation blog has this very interesting new post about federal crack-powder sentencing reform which is headlined "Vindicating Reagan’s Drug Policy … 25 Years Later."  Here are excerpts:

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated a permanent amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that reduces jail time for those convicted of offenses related to crack cocaine.  Liberals would love to portray the new drug sentencing standard for crack cocaine as a success story, in which the Obama administration undid a draconian Reagan-era drug policy.  Critics are unduly harsh on Ronald Reagan’s drug policy, blaming the Great Communicator for driving the hysteria in the 1980s which led to the enactment of unfair criminal drug laws.

However, liberals might want to avoid taking credit for “fairer” crack cocaine sentencing laws when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.  A look back twenty-five years ago reveals it was not President Reagan behind the gross disparities in sentencing of cocaine traffickers but in fact the liberals who created the problem in the first place.

In 1986,...[the] person responsible for the crack-powder cocaine ratio contained within the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was Vice President Joe Biden.  Then-Senator Biden succumbed to what he later referred to as “a feeling of desperation” and proposed a 100-to-1 ratio.  His Democratic colleague from Florida, Senator Lawton Chiles, went even farther, by suggesting a 1000-to-1 ratio.  The 100-to-1 ratio ultimately became law and served as the basis for the November 1, 1987 sentencing guidelines.  By contrast, the Reagan administration proposed a much more reasonable 20-to-1 crack-powder ratio.

As a result of adopting Senator Biden’s ratio, defendants convicted of trafficking 50 grams of crack cocaine received a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, the same sentence given to someone who for trafficking in 5,000 grams of powder cocaine. Confronted with this disparity, the Sentencing Commission proposed reductions to the ratio in 1995, 1997, 2002 and 2007.  Each of these recommendations was unsuccessful because Congress refused to make a change.

Twenty years after his proposal became law, Biden backtracked, admitting that the facts that informed Congress’s determination “have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentence structure we created unfounded and unfair.”  He also said, “Each of the myths upon which we based the sentencing disparity has since been dispelled or altered.”

The amendment to the guidelines that was promulgated last week raised the quantities of crack cocaine to trigger mandatory minimum terms from 5 to 28 grams for five-year sentences and from 50 to 280 grams for ten-year sentences.  Thus, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the ration to 18-to-1.  After multiple attempts by the Sentencing Commission to undo Biden’s proposal and years where crack and powder cocaine traffickers were sentenced in vastly different ways, a proportion akin to Reagan’s policy was established.

On August 3, 2010, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act in the Oval Office.  He made no remarks at the signing.  What President Obama probably should have said was that twenty-five years of a vast disparity in drug sentencing could have been avoided if Congress only listened to Reagan.

Judge Mark Bennet thoroughly explains why he is stil going to use 1:1 ratio in crack sentencings

In a week full of important crack sentencing news, I think the most interesting development come from Iowa in the form of a lengthy new opinion by US District Judge Mark Bennett in US v. Williams, No. CR 10-4083-2-MWB (D. Iowa Sept. 27, 2010) (available for download below). I could say so much about so many notable passages in this 82-page opinion, but I will be content to let the first paragraph and the conclusion of the Williams opinion speak for itself:

Defendant Billy Williams, Sr., came before me on March 15, 2011, for a presentencing hearing on his motion for downward variance, objections to the presentence report, and other legal issues, following his guilty plea to four crack cocaine charges.  Although there were numerous other issues to be resolved in the course of Williams’s sentencing, this Memorandum Opinion And Order focuses exclusively on the issue of whether I should continue to adhere to my prior determination that a 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio is appropriate to calculate the guideline sentencing range for crack cocaine offenses, or should now adopt the roughly 18:1 ratio adopted by the Sentencing Commission on November 1, 2010, pursuant to a congressional mandate in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.  When I first learned that the 2010 FSA was about to be passed, I just assumed that I would change my opinion from a 1:1 ratio to the new 18:1 ratio, because I assumed that Congress would have had persuasive evidence — or at least some empirical or other evidence—before it as the basis to adopt that new ratio.  I likewise assumed that the Sentencing Commission would have brought its institutional expertise and empirical evidence to bear, both in advising Congress and in adopting crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines based on the 18:1 ratio.  Failing that, I assumed that the prosecution would present at the presentencing hearing in this case some evidence supporting the 18:1 ratio.  This Memorandum Opinion And Order addresses whether my modest expectations have been fulfilled and whether I should now also adopt the 18:1 ratio adopted in the amended Sentencing Guidelines....

Make no mistake: I believe that the replacement of the 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio of the 1986 Act and associated Sentencing Guidelines with the 18:1 crack-to-powder ratio of the 2010 FSA and the November 1, 2010, amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines was a huge improvement, in terms of fairness to crack defendants.  While such incremental improvement is often the nature of political progress on difficult social justice issues — and, in this instance, the increment is perhaps unusually large — an incremental improvement is not enough to make me abdicate my duty to “[c]ritically evaluat[e] the crack/cocaine ratio in terms of its fealty to the purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act.” See Whigham, ___ F. Supp. 2d at ___, 2010 WL 4959882 at *7.

Performing that duty here, I must reject the Sentencing Guidelines using the “new” 18:1 ratio, just as I rejected the Sentencing Guidelines using the “old” 100:1 ratio, based on a policy disagreement with those guidelines, even in “mine-run” cases, such as this one.  I must do so, because I find that the “new” 18:1 guidelines still suffer from most or all of the same injustices that plagued the 100:1 guidelines, including the failure of the Sentencing Commission to exercise its characteristic institutional role in developing the guidelines, the lack of support for most of the assumptions that crack cocaine involves greater harms than powder cocaine, the improper use of the quantity ratio as a “proxy” for the perceived greater harms of crack cocaine, and the disparate impact of the ratio on black offenders.  I also find that the “new” guidelines suffer from some additional concerns, in that they now create a “double whammy” on crack defendants, penalizing them once for the assumed presence of aggravating circumstances in crack cocaine cases and again for the actual presence of such aggravating circumstances in a particular case.

In one respect the “new” 18:1 guideline ratio is more irrational and pernicious than the original 100:1.  When the 100:1 ratio was enacted, Congress and the Sentencing Commission did not have access to the overwhelming scientific evidence that they now have.  This overwhelming scientific evidence now demonstrates that the difference between crack and powder is like the difference between ice and water — or beer and wine.  Can anyone imagine a sentence that is many times harsher for becoming legally intoxicated by drinking wine rather than beer?  Of course not.

I also reiterate that the proper methodology, in light of my policy-based rejection of the 18:1 ratio in the Sentencing Guidelines, is to calculate the guideline range under existing law (i.e., using the 18:1 ratio) and any appropriate guideline adjustments or departures, including the “new” adjustments for aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but then to calculate an alternative guideline range using a 1:1 ratio, again including appropriate guideline adjustments or departures, again including the “new” adjustments for aggravating and mitigating circumstances.  The court must ultimately use or vary from that alternative guideline range based upon consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in light of case-specific circumstances.

I will sentence defendant Billy Williams, Sr., accordingly.

Download 10cr4083.dno305.Williams.newcrackratio.040711

US Sentencing Commission makes guideline crack reductions permanent

As detailed in this official press release from the US Sentencing Commission, the USSC today promulgated a permanent amendment implementing the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010."  Here is more:

Commission chair, Judge Patti B. Saris (District of Massachusetts) said, “The Fair Sentencing Act was among the most significant pieces of criminal justice legislation passed by Congress in the last three decades. For over 15 years, the Commission has advocated for changes to the statutory penalty structure for crack cocaine offenses. The Commission applauds Congress and the Administration for addressing the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenders.”

No crack cocaine offender will see his or her sentence increase based solely on the quantity thresholds the Commission set today in the federal sentencing guidelines. As a result of today’s action, the federal sentencing guidelines will focus more on offender culpability by placing greater emphasis on factors other than drug quantity.

Based on an analysis of the most recent sentencing data, the Commission estimates that crack cocaine offenders sentenced after November 1, 2011, will receive sentences that are approximately 25 percent lower on average as a result of the changes made to the federal sentencing guidelines today. Moreover, the Commission estimates that these changes may reduce the cost of incarceration for crack cocaine offenders in the federal prison system in the future.

Today’s vote by the Commission will set the triggering quantities of crack cocaine for the five and 10-year mandatory minimum penalties (28 grams and 280 grams, respectively) at base offense levels 26 and 32, which correspond to a sentencing range of 63-78 months and 121-151 months, respectively, for a defendant with little or no criminal history. This action maintains proportionality with other drug types insofar as the quantity of illegal drugs, including crack cocaine, required to trigger the five- and ten-year statutory mandatory minimum penalties is subject to the same base offense level no matter the drug type.

Pursuant to statute, the Commission must consider whether its amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines implementing the Fair Sentencing Act should apply retroactively. The Commission plans to hold a hearing on June 1, 2011, to consider retroactivity, and voted today to seek public comment on the issue.

Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes

While I was checking out lots of culture and humanity in Las Vegas yesterday (explanation here), the Seventh Circuit issued an important new opinion concerning the application of the Fair Sentencing Act to pipeline cases in US v. Fisher, No. 10-2352 (7th Cir. March 11, 2011) (available here).  What makes Fishersignificant is that the panel expressly considers and rejects a defendant's claims that there are unique reasons for applying the FSA's new crack sentencing provisions to those initially sentenced after the FSA became law.  Here are key passages from the opinion:

Debate surrounding the crack cocaine sentencing scheme and the infamous “100:1 ratio” has been raging for years, and there is strong rhetoric to be found on either side.  The FSA is compromise legislation and must be viewed as such.  Given the long-standing debate surrounding, and high-level congressional awareness of, this issue, we hesitate to read in by implication anything not obvious in the text of the FSA.  We believe that if Congress wanted the FSA or the guideline amendment s to apply to not-yet-sentenced defendant s convicted on pre-FSA conduct, it would have at least dropped a hint to that effect somewhere in the text of the FSA, perhaps in its charge to the Sentencing Commission.  In other words, if Congress wanted retroactive application of the FSA, it would have said so.

Given the absence of any direct statement or necessary implication to the contrary, we reaffirm our finding that the FSA does not apply retroactively, and further find that the relevant date for a determination of retroactivity is the date of the unde rlying criminal conduct , not the date of sentencing.

We have sympathy for the two defendants here , who lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic dice and we re sentenced under a structure which has now been recognized as unfair. However, “[p]unishment for federal crimes is a matter for Congress, subject to judicial veto only when the legislative judgment oversteps constitutional bounds.”  Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653, 664 (1974).

As regular readers know, I think this outcome is wrong as a matter of statutory interpretation, in part because I believe statutory construction cannons like the rule of lenity and constitutional doubt provide a basis for reaching the opposite conclusion than the one reached by the Seventh Circuit. Nevertheless, I fear that a number of circuit will end up ruling like the Seventh Circuit here even though there has been a deep split in the district courts on this precise issue.

Some posts on this FSA issue:

• Second Circuit demands application of old 100-1 crack mandatories ... with laments
• Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA to pending cases
• A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• Federal sentencing litigation at its absolute finest
• New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
• Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
• Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
• WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
• A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
• Notable new letter to AG Eric Holder concerning application of the FSA

Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging Congress to "completely eliminate" any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?

There are lots of notable and important aspects to the thoughtful new opinion by US District Judge D. Brock Hornby in US v. Douglas, No. 09-202-P-H (D. Maine Oct. 27, 2010) (available here), which concludes that a defendant guilty of committing a crack offense back in 2009 but "not yet sentenced on November 1, 2010, is to be sentenced under the amended Guidelines, and the Fair Sentencing Act's altered mandatory minimums apply to such a defendant as well."  But in this post I want to spotlight and wonder aloud about a footnote from the opinion noting DOJ's current advocacy position on this important and consequential issue.

Specifically, after explaining that the government in Douglas was urging that the old crack mandatory minimums apply to "to all future prosecutions and sentencings based on pre-August 3, 2010, conduct," Judge Hornby drops this footnote:

At oral argument, I did inquire of the Assistant United States Attorney whether his argument was a matter of individual U.S. Attorney Office discretion or the position of the Department of Justice, and he replied that he understood it to be the policy of the Department of Justice.

I am very pleased that Judge Hornby asked this important question, and now very curious why President Obama's Department of Justice has adopted the advocacy policy that the unfair and now reformed old crack sentencing statute should and must be applied for as long as possible to as many defendants as possible.  For a number of reasons, this policy/advocacy seems deeply misguided and troublesome:

First, as I sought to explained in this amicus letter I submitted in a pending case in NYC, I think a fair reading of congressional intent and statutory construction principles call for the FSA to apply to pending cases as soon as possible.

Second, given that there are debatable statutory claims here and that every defendant in every district court with a sentencing pending will press for immediate application of the FSA, the DOJ's current position ensures extensive, costly federal litigation for many months and will likely ensure disparate sentencing outcomes in different parts of the country for many years. If DOJ is really interested in consistent sentencing practices and outcomes, it could and should simply embrace the policy of having the FSA now apply to all not-yet-sentenced defendants.

Third, way back in April 2009, the official advocacy policy of the DOJ was to call upon Congress to "completely eliminate[] the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine" (testimony here). Disappointingly, Congress only partially reduced the disparity; but, now even more disappointingly, DOJ now seems to want the old unjust 100-1 ratio to apply for a long as possible to as many defendants as possible.

I can imagine various reasons why federal prosecutors have adopted its worrisome position in these FSA pipeline case.  But because DOJ is supposed to be a Department of Justice, not merely a Department of making the best arguments for federal prosecutors, I am hopeful that DOJ might before long consider changing course.

New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants

A helpful lawyer altered me to a thoughtful new opinion by US District Judge D. Brock Hornby in US v. Douglas, No. 09-202-P-H (D. Maine Oct. 27, 2010) (available here), which concludes that a defendant guilty of committing a crack offense back in 2009 but "not yet sentenced on November 1, 2010, is to be sentenced under the amended Guidelines, and the Fair Sentencing Act‘s altered mandatory minimums apply to such a defendant as well."  Here is Douglas opinion's final substantive paragraph (and footnote) explaining how Judge Hornby reaches this conclusion:

I conclude, based upon the context of the Act, its title, its preamble, the emergency authority afforded to the Commission, and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, that Congress did not want federal judges to continue to impose harsher mandatory sentences after enactment merely because the criminal conduct occurred before enactment.  Yes, the 1871 Saving Clause deserves attention, but it does not command special attention. Generally, as Great Northern recognized, an earlier Congress cannot bind a later Congress. If it is a stretch to say that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 "expressly provide[s]" that the previous mandatory minimums are vacated for future sentences, Congress certainly made clear the urgency of change and its concern for fairness; and it gave no signal that it was distinguishing the emergency Guideline amendments that it expressly mandated from the statutory sentencing floors from which they directly flow.  In the words of the Supreme Court, it is either a "necessary implication" or a "fair implication" that, although retroactivity to those previously imprisoned might not be contemplated, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 permits no further federal crack sentencings that are not "fair."[FN57]

[FN57] Indeed, I would find it gravely disquieting to apply hereafter a sentencing penalty that Congress has declared to be unfair. One can imagine the ramifications of a contrary decision.  Defendants would seek to negotiate with federal prosecutors to waive indictment and plead to an information that charges conduct that extends after August 3, 2010, so that they could be sentenced under the new Act.  That charging option would be formidable leverage for prosecutors until the statute of limitations has run on criminal conduct that occurred before August 3, 2010.  And that discretion would be lodged with prosecutors where its exercise is invisible, rather than with judges whose decisions must be explained upon the public record.  That operation of the Fair Sentencing Act would belie its title, at least for the next few years.

Seventh Circuit joins Sixth and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting applicability of FSA to pipeline cases

At the end of a lengthy opinion addressing other issues, a Seventh Circuit panel today in US v. Bell, No. 09-3908 (7th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010)  (available here), weighs in concerning an issue that I know is being litigated in various ways in various federal courts in the wake of the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act.  Here are excerpts from the panel's work:

Three days after the FSA was enacted, Bell, who had not previously challenged any aspect of his sentence, filed a pro se motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding the application of the FSA to his case. We granted Bell’s motion, ordered his court-appointed counsel to file a brief on his behalf, and ordered the government to file a response. After reviewing the ably prepared briefs of both parties, we conclude that the FSA is not retroactive and therefore does not apply to Bell’s case....

Like our sister circuits that have considered this issue, see United States v. Gomes, ___ F.3d ___, No. 10-11225, 2010 WL 3810872, at *2 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2010); United States v. Carradine, ___ F.3d ___, No. 08-3220, 2010 WL 3619799, at *4-*5 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2010), we conclude that the savings statute operates to bar the retroactive application of the FSA. Bell’s arguments to the contrary are novel but ultimately unpersuasive....

[T]he FSA’s predominant purpose was to change the punishments associated with drug offenses. The savings statute therefore prevents it from operating retroactively absent any indication from Congress.  And since the FSA does not contain so much as a hint that Congress intended it to apply retroactively, it cannot help Bell here.

Though I guess it is fair to say that "the FSA does not contain so much as a hint that Congress intended it to apply retroactively," I am not so sure (1) that Bell is technically seeking its retroactive application (at least as that term is used in habeas jurisprudence), nor so sure (2) that Congress did not want the FSA to be applied to cases still in the sentencing pipeline. Let me explain what I mean here:

1.As the term is used in habeas jurisprudence, asking for a new law to apply "retroactively" means seeking to apply that new law to cases that have already become "final," which means cases that have already completed all stages of direct appeal (up to and through SCOTUS review).  Bell's case is still on direct appeal, so he is not really seeking "retroactive" application of the FSA, at least not as that term is used in habeas settings.

2.Congress did provide in the FSA for the US Sentencing Commission to make emergency amendments to the sentencing guidelines to reflect the FSA's new crack/powder ratio. It is not entirely clear why Congress would want/need the USSG to make such emergency amendments unless it wanted the provisions and consequences of the FSA to kick in ASAP. This reality is not a clear statement of Congressional purpose to apply the FSA to cases in the pipeline like Bell's case, but it does at least "hint" that Congress intended the new sentencing terms of the FSA to impact crack sentencing cases as soon as possible.