Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
By Mark P. Rankin
White-Collar Crime columns.
Rule 35(b) Meets Section 3553(a) — What Can a Federal Court Consider?
Since the Supreme Court’s first shots across the bow of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in Blakely,1 and continuing with its most recent decision in Spears,2 the Court has significantly restored sentencing discretion to the federal trial courts. No matter whether one agrees with this seismic shift, there is now little controversy over whether a district court may effectively reject the Sentencing Guidelines and sentence a defendant based upon the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (the “§ 3553(a) factors”). In fact, at a minimum, a sentencing court must consider those factors in fashioning a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth by Congress.
While this federal sentencing process is by now well-settled, questions about the proper sentencing framework remain unresolved where a sentencing is precipitated by the government’s Rule 35(b) motion, filed
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.