Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia

Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia 

625 Indiana AVE nw


202 208-7500

Home Page Agency Briefbank Library CJA Opinions

bookThe Law Library

Here you will find information of interest to criminal defense attorneys.

DOJ Publications and Memos
  DOJ Electronic Evidence and Search and Seizure Legal Resources
US Attorneys Manual
US Attorneys Office Bulletin
BOP Drug Treatment Center Chart 2006
Naturalization Chart 2004
Training Material
  The BOP: Bureau of Prisons Issues Presentation by criminal defense attorney, Todd Bussert.  Information in this presentation was in part from the book  "Defending a Federal Criminal Case" , for more info please visit  http://www.fdsdi.com/publications.html website".



Office of Defender Services/Training Branch Administrative Office of the United States Courts


The Federal Public Defenders for the District of Oregon Search and Seizure Outline. Oct 2009



The Neal Jaffee DC Opinion Summary

2011 May to June

2011 July to August

  Sentencing Law and Policy
  Appellate Litigation Blog
Computer Forensics
  Find out IP addresses, Who owns a website, etc...
  International Journal of Digital Evidence
  E-Evidence Information Center

An Introduction to Federal Guideline Sentencing (13th ed. 2011)

  Selected Firearms Offenses - Cheat Sheet
  Supervised Release (DC) Table
  Firearms Offenses - Sentencing Enhancement based on prior conviction
  Federal Sentencing Grid
  Anomaly in the Crack Guidelines by Amy Baron-Evans
Sentencing Resource Counsel
Federal Public and Community Defenders. See their Sentencing Resource page
Crack Changes  

Commission Clarifies Meaning of USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(B): Clients Who Received Non-Guideline Sentence Under Booker Still Eligible for Crack Retroactivity Sentence Reduction - 2008


The amended guideline retroactivity policy statement, USSG §1B1.10, states at §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) that “if the original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be appropriate.” This appears to suggest that clients are not entitled to relief under the amendment if they received a non-guideline sentence under Booker.

However, Sentencing Resource Counsel, as well as many Federal Defenders, report that at the Crack Summits in Charlotte and St. Louis, and at the Defender conference in Seattle, the Commission explained that §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) applies only if the original sentencing judge did not consider the guidelines at all. This acknowledgment is good news because there should be no instances in which judges ignored the guidelines. A sentencing judge must consider the guidelines, even if she then rejects them as unsound policy, and to do otherwise is reversible error. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596 (2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 564, 570 (2007); Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 2468 (2007); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245-46 (2005).

  Admendments to Guidelines (opens fd.org)
  Deconstructing the Guidelines is a special project undertaken by National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel. The papers in this section critically examine the history and basis of the most frequently encountered provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Judges are now invited to consider arguments that the guideline itself fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations, reflects an unsound judgment, does not treat defendant characteristics in the proper way, or that a different sentence is appropriate regardless. Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465, 2468 (2007). Judges "may vary [from Guidelines ranges] based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines," Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 570 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and when they do, the courts of appeals may not "grant greater factfinding leeway to [the Commission] than to [the] district judge." Rita , 127 S. Ct. at 2463. Whatever respect a guideline may deserve depends on whether the Commission acted in "the exercise of its characteristic institutional role." Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575. This role has two basic components: (1) reliance on empirical evidence of pre-guidelines sentencing practice, and (2) review and revision in light of judicial decisions, sentencing data, and comments from participants and experts in the field. Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2464-65. "Notably, not all of the Guidelines are tied to this empirical evidence." Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 n.2 (2007). When a guideline is not the product of "empirical data and national experience," it is not an abuse of discretion to conclude that it fails to achieve the § 3553(a)'s purposes, even in "a mine-run case." Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575.
  Translation of legal terms/words used in Federal Court


Back to top