Tag Archives: USSC

Sentencing Commission May Adopt First Offender Proposal on Thursday – Update for April 9, 2018

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

LISAStatHeader2small
 SENTENCING COMMISSION SET TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS

Some of our friends who publish their own newsletters have predicted 17 of the last two United States Sentencing Commission actions on the so-called first offender proposal. They should be glad that the long wait is just about over. The USSC will hold its April meeting on Thursday, April 12, at which time it is expected to adopt proposed amendments for November 2018, including quite possibly some form of first offender relief.

abscissa180319The USSC’s sentencing guidelines are based on a cartesian system with the abscissa being the offense level and the ordinate being the defendant’s criminal history. If you rob a bank, that offense is worth a base offense level of so many points. If you threatened an old lady in the process, that is worth a few more points, but if you confess after being caught, that takes a few points off.

Your criminal history is calculated based on the number, severity and age of prior criminal convictions. A prior drunk driving is not as bad as a felony burglary, and while a 12-year old misdemeanor possession of pot charge isn’t worth anything, a 12-year old felony trafficking in pot is. The result is a Total Offense Level and Criminal expressed in Arabic numbers (such as a Level 22) and a Criminal History Category expressed in Roman numerals (such as a “III”). On the sentencing table that is Chapter 5A of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant with a Total Offense Level of 22 and a Crim History Level III would have a suggested sentencing range of  51-63 months.

Oscar180410Now for the “First Offender” proposal: It is entirely possible to have prior convictions galore and yet be a Criminal History I (the best score you can achieve). The Guidelines define a Crim I as someone with zero or one criminal history point, which means you could have had a couple of heroin distribution felonies in the 1980s, a string of misdemeanor domestic violences between 1990 and 2006, and one minor misdemeanor 2014, and – because of the age of the offenses – be a Criminal History I. Such a defendant is far different from the 55-year old guy who has never even gotten a traffic ticket, but ends up with a tax fraud conviction. Both defendants get the best treatment from the Sentencing Table that’s possible, but one is a genuine virgin while the other has simply mastered the talent of not getting caught. In recognition, the USSC proposed  that the Phoebe Snows of the criminal world get bonus points for a prior record that’s purer than Crim I.

Two options for a “First Offender” guideline were floated by the USSC. One was that any defendant with zero criminal history points should be considered a First Offender. The second proposal, a stricter one, was more like an Academy Award for lifetime achievement, and would give bonus points to those with no criminal convictions any time in their past, no matter how old.

virgin180409As for nomenclature, the First Offender guideline would adjust a first offender’s Total Offense Level downward. The Sentencing Commission suggested that either all defendants who qualify as “first offenders” would receive a 1-level reduction from their offense level, or perhaps that  defendants who qualify as “first offenders” would receive a 2-level reduction if their Total Offense Level was below 16 and a 1-level reduction if it’s above. 

After the spate of comments for and against the various proposals (and a few against any First Offender guideline at all) presented to the USSC last month, we’ll see in a few days just how eager the Commission is the Trumpian “law-and-order” atmosphere that overhangs Washington to give any defendant, no matter how deserving, a break.

If it is adopted, the First Offender amendment will not be retroactive – that is, not apply to people already sentenced – unless the USSC holds an additional proceeding to declare it so. In other words, current federal inmates are urged not to fall for pitches from anyone (be it an outside service or a guy in the law library who wants some commissary) to prepare a filing to claim your sentence reduction. While it could happen, it will not be happening soon.

knuckles180409And, as we all know, the President has nominated some genuine knuckle-draggers to serve on the Commission. If they are confirmed by the Senate, you can likely kiss any chance for retroactivity goodbye.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting – April 12, 2018

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Four Foxes Nominated to Guard Henhouse – Update for March 7, 2018

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

LISAStatHeader2small
FOUR FOXES NOMINATED TO GUARD SENTENCING COMMISSION HENHOUSE

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, currently considering a “first offender” proposal that would reduce the Guidelines of people with no prior record, had better act quickly. Last Thursday, President Trump announced four nominees to the Commission, three federal judges and a guy named Bill Otis. All of them will require Senate approval.

henhouse180307Otis’ nomination marks one of Trump’s most powerful statements yet against sentencing reform. A man described as “a prominent pro-prosecution crusader,” Otis has a history as the worst kind of AUSA, a guy who oversaw criminal prosecutions without ever actually doing any of them himself. He is a vigorous advocate for lengthy prison sentences and mandatory minimum laws (especially for drug sentencing, and is a staunch supporter of the Attorney General’s re-emphasis on them. He dismisses reformers as “pro-criminal” advocates who want to be “nice to drug pushers” by letting “robe-wearing partisans” impose more lenient sentences. And he supports life without parole for juveniles. Slate.com quotes him as writing that to avoid longer sentences, criminals should “consider quitting the smack business and getting a normal job like everybody else.”

“Congress should abolish the Sentencing Commission,” Otis testified at a 2011 House Judiciary Committee hearing. “By far the most important purpose for which it was created no longer exists—to write binding rules for district courts to use in sentencing. It does have some secondary functions—for example, to study possible statutory improvements, as well as gather and publish statistics about sentencing practices—but when its core function has been demoted to making increasingly ignored non-rules, it’s time to turn the page.”

Otis’ appointment to the Commission “drew reactions of horror and condemnation from criminal justice advocates,” Reason.com reported. Those denouncing the choice ranged from the pro-inmate Families Against Mandatory Minimums and the conservative Cato Institute. Such criticism of Otis and Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia could make it harder for the full slate of four to win swift U.S. Senate confirmation. Before Trump’s announcement, criminal justice reform activists were quietly urging the White House not to nominate Hudson.

hudsonB170811Trump and Sessions appeared to have had a falling out last week, when the President called the AG’s handling of the FISA wiretap investigation “disgraceful.” Sessions then pushed back against the insult, saying he was presiding over DOJ’s investigation in a constitutional manner. But the next day, Trump nominated three Republicans and one Democrat to the USSC, and all three Republicans – Hudson, Otis, and Judge William Pryor – are Sessions allies. Of particular note is Hudson, known colloquially in Virginia as Henry “Hang ’em High” Hudson. Sessions recommended Hudson for the USSC in August 2017 and has now gotten his wish.

The primary concern for inmates is that provisions like “First Offender,” even if adopted before the newbies are confirmed on the Commission, will never become retroactive. Retroactivity is usually decided after a new Guidelines provision is adopted, but the new appointees are unlikely to support that.

Slate.com, Law and Order: Dinosaurs (Mar. 1, 2018)

Business Insider, Trump’s sentencing panel picks may face uphill Senate path (Mar. 2, 2018)

Daily Caller, Trump’s Sentencing Commission Nominees Show He May Not be That Angry at Jeff Sessions (Mar. 1, 2018)

Reason.com, Trump Nominates Man Who Called for Abolishing U.S. Sentencing Commission to U.S. Sentencing Commission (Mar. 1, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small