Tag Archives: sentence package doctrine

Resentencing the Whole Crack Defendant – Update for April 1, 2024

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

PACKAGE STORE

More than a few prisoners seeking sentence reductions under Section 404 of the First Step Act – the provision that made the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act apply retroactively to crack cocaine sentences – were denied reductions because they had other non-crack counts of conviction that weren’t covered by Section 404 and kept the sentences high.

gift211222In the case of Nathaniel Richardson, his sentence was life for crack distribution and a second life term for a 21 USC § 848 continuing criminal enterprise count. The district court found that the crack distribution count was a covered offense and reduced Nate’s life sentence to 360 months. But on the CCE count, the district court relied on 4th Circuit precedent, holding that CCEs were not covered offenses under Section 404 and left the life term intact. That life term was unchanged.

Last week, the 4th Circuit reversed, holding that the district court had the discretion to reduce both covered and noncovered offenses under Section 404 of the First Step Act “if they function as a package.”

The 4th said it has “upheld the use of the sentencing package doctrine in the habeas context, and resentencing under the First Step Act similarly provides district courts with broad discretion to fashion a remedy.” The Circuit ruled that “allowing judges to utilize the sentencing package doctrine is in line with how district judges practically sentence defendants and in accordance with the purpose of the First Step Act… The sentencing package doctrine is applicable here because where one count of a package is remanded, the district judge must be given the discretion to reconfigure the sentencing plan to ensure it remains adequate to satisfy the statutory sentencing factors.

District judges are entrusted with “enormous responsibility,” the 4th said, “and must be given adequate discretion in resentencing, especially in light of the changing landscape of new statutory schemes.”

United States v. Richardson, Case No. 22-6748, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6618 (4th Cir., March 20, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Opening a Sentence Package – Update for March 27, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

UNDOING A SENTENCE PACKAGE IS UP TO DISTRICT COURT

Jim Troiano was sentenced concurrently to 17 years on three counts, one of which was a felon-in-possession enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. After the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, he got the ACCA sentence vacated, but the district court refused to resentence on the other two counts. Jim’s sentence remained at 17 years (plus seven more for an 18 USC 924(c) conviction).

gift190327Jim appealed, arguing that his sentence was a “package,” and the district court could not change the sentence on just one count without resentencing on all of the counts and giving him a lesser aggregate sentence. Last week, the 9th Circuit disagreed. It said in a resentencing, the decision to unbundle a sentencing package – that is, to conduct a full resentencing on all remaining counts of conviction when one or more counts of a multi-count conviction are undone – rests within the sound discretion of the district court.

Troiano v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8596 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root