Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Sixth Circuit Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Federal Judiciary
: Sixth Circuit BlogSpears v. U.S.---Getting the Kimbrough Point Across
ADVERTISEMENTS

Spears v. United States, No. 08?5721 (Jan. 21, 2009).
Per Curiam reversal of the Eighth Circuit on Kimbrough grounds.
District Court had used a 20:1 crack-to-powder ratio (pre-amendments) to sentence a "mine-run" offender. Eighth Circuit said that the district courts may not categorically reject the guideline ratio. The Supreme Court reversed.
Court affirms that the cocaine guidelines are merely advisory and that it is NOT an abuse of discretion for a district court to find that the crack-powder disparity yields an excessive sentence in a MINE-RUN case. A district court may vary downward from the advisory sentencing range based solely on the view that the guideline ratio is at odds with Section 3553(a). A sentencing court need only find that the ratio creates unwarranted sentencing disparity. A categorical disagreement with the Guidelines and a variance from the guideline range is NOT suspect (at least for the crack guidelines).
Very helpful decision and can be applied in other contexts?career offender, child porn, etc. When a guideline is not the product of the Sentencing Commission?s characteristic institutional role, a mine-run-case variance from the guideline range is not suspect. This opinion brings into even brighter light the need to deconstruct the guidelines that are not based on empirical support, attack them, and argue that disagreement with these suspect guidelines is not untoward.
Spears calls into question the validity of this summer?s holding in United States v. Funk, 534 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2008). It does not sink Funk out-of-hand; however, it provides much ammunition to question the holding. It seems to be a matter of attacking a guideline in the correct manner?really demonstrating that it is not a product of the Commission?s characteristic institutional role. What we need to do is give sentencing courts reasons to support policy disagreements with the Guidelines. And you will find GREAT reasons and resources at fd.org. Check out the Sentencing Resources and all the deconstruction materials.
Full post as published by Sixth Circuit Blog on January 22, 2009 (boomark / email).
Related Law Articles
Stacy Schneider
Stacy Schneider offers to be Britney Spears Lawyer for Free
5150 Hold
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150-5157
Lawsuits and Settlements
Point Blank Solutions
Multi Million Dollar Settlement
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Dueling with Spears (aka digesting Spears)
Gall and Kimbrough - Briefs, Trancripts and Links to Coverage
Eighth Circuit tries to unpack Kimbrough in en banc ruling
Britany Spears mentally incompetent to appear in probate court
Britney Spears conservatorship to continue








