Supreme Court grants cert. to review federal sentencing practice. Click here for more information
Welcome to the Booker/Fanfan Resource page on fd.org. This page currently features a variety of documents summarizing key Booker-related cases, analyses of the major legal issues resulting from Booker, and strategies for sentencing post-Booker. The page also contains a collection of sample Booker-related model documents from several circuits, as well as studies, statistics and reports that can be used to support various sentencing arguments.
Our page is currently divided into the following topics:
|
Cases and Model Documents
|
|
Text of Opinion in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, 125 S.Ct. 738, L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005) |
|
Booker Model Documents (briefs, motions, sentencing memos, petitions) |
 |
Notable Booker-related Cases |
|
128 Mitigating Factors: Cases Granting, Affirming or Suggesting Mitigating Factors (last updated on February 1, 2006)
by Michael R. Levine, Law Offices of Michael R. Levine, Portland, OR
An updated version of this document is available from the author for a fee of $100. Contact Michael Levine for more information at michaellevineesq@aol.com. |
|
Sentences After Booker: Imposition and Review (last updated on July 10, 2005) |
|
Review of Sentences Imposed Before Booker (last updated on July 10, 2005)
by Frances H. Pratt, Research & Writing Attorney, E. D. VA |
|
Government Reports; Compilations of Studies;
Statistics and Other Resources
|
|
Court of Appeals Review, December 1, 2005 - November 30, 2006
(A comprehensive review of court of appeals decisions between December 1, 2005 and November 30, 2006, showing the rates of affirmance and reversal of within, above and below-guideline sentences at the national and circuit levels, as well as a comparison of rates in presumption and non-presumption circuits.) |
|
Difference in rates of below-guideline sentences imposed in circuits that have adopted a presumption of reasonableness and those that have not for the period January 1, 2005 - November 27, 2006
(A graph and the data used to prepare it showing a widening gap between the rate of below-guideline sentences imposed in circuits that have adopted a presumption of reasonableness and those that have not.) |
| |
A sample of transcripts of sentencing hearings in which judges expressed the belief that they could not sentence outside the guideline range: |
| |
- US v. Lopez-Cerda Transcript
Transcript of sentencing hearing in United States v. Lopez-Cerda, Criminal No. SA-05-CR-057 (W.D.Tex. July 6, 2005).
- US v. Hartley Transcript
Transcript of sentencing hearing in United States v. Hartley, Criminal No. 06-00017 (S.D.W.V. August 10, 2006).
- US v. Raby Transcript
Transcript of sentencing hearing in United States v. Raby, Criminal No. 05-00003 (S.D.W.V. September 27, 2006).
|
|
Memo to Probation Officers and Pretrial Services Officers Regarding Costs of Incarceration and Pre-Trial Detention for Fiscal Year 2005 (May 24, 2006) |
|
An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories: Part I & Part II (February 4, 1994) (U.S. Department of Justice)
(finding that a substantial number of minor role drug offenders with minimal criminal histories "are much less likely than high-level defendants to re-offend" and "a short prison sentence is just as likely to deter them from future offending as a long prison sentence.") |
|
Using Studies and Statistics to Redefine the Purposes of Sentencing (March 2006)
Compiled by various federal defender attorneys
(listing studies, reports and other materials that can be used to undercut the assumptions upon which guideline sentences are based) |
|
A Year After Booker: Most Sentences Still Within Guidelines (February 2006)
from The Third Branch, the newsletter of the Federal Courts |
|
The United States Sentencing Commission's Report on the Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing (March 2006) |
|
Defender Articles and Publications
|
|
The Continuing Struggle for Just, Effective and Constitutional Sentencing After United States v. Booker (August 2006)
by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel |
|
Sentencing Post-Booker (April 10, 2006)
by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel |
|
Antidote to the Kool-Aid: Giving the Guidelines Substantial or Presumptive Weight is Constitutionally, Textually and Factually Unsound (April 10, 2006) (This is an updated version of "Enforcing the New Sentencing Law")
by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel |
|
Defenders' Letter to Sentencing Commission Re: Report on Federal Sentencing Since United States v. Booker |
|
The Truth About Fast Track |
|
Section 3553(a)(2) and the USSC's newly released reports on recidivism (January 2006)
by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel |
|
Grid & Bear It: Post-Booker Litigation Strategies - Part I (November 2005) |
|
Grid & Bear It: Post-Booker Litigation Strategies - Part II (November 2005)
by David L. McColgin, Supervising Appellate Attorney, E.D. PA
& Brett G. Sweitzer, Appellate Attorney, E.D. PA
(This article is a revision of the Booker Litigation Strategies Manual by the same authors. It is copyrighted by The Champion magazine and is made available here with the authors’ and NACDL’s permission.) |
|
The Doing Time Times, Spring 2005
The Doing Time Times, Winter 2006
Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc. |
|
The Due Process Approach to Sentencing Justice: How Courts Can Use Their Discretion To Make Sentencings More Accurate and Trustworthy (January 2006)
by Alan DuBois, Senior Appellate Attorney, E. D. N.C.
& Anne E. Blanchard, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
(This article has been accepted for publication in the Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 18, No. 2, Jan. 2006) |
|
A Booker Advisory: Into the Breyer Patch (March 2005)
by Steven G. Kalar, Assistant Federal Public Defender & Senior Litigator, N.D. CA;
Jane L. McClellan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, D. AZ;
& Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, D. AZ
(This article is copyrighted by The Champion magazine and is made available here with the authors’ and NACDL’s permission.) |
|
Presumptively Unreasonable: Using the Sentencing Commission’s Words to Attack the Advisory Guidelines (March 2005)
by Anne E. Blanchard, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel
& Kristen Gartman Rogers, Appellate Attorney, S. D. AL
(This article is copyrighted by The Champion magazine and is made available here with the authors’ and NACDL’s permission.) |
|
|
| |
Sentencing Law and Policy blog |
|
|
