Federal Sentencing Guidelines Amendment Hearing

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is back to work with the Senate’s confirmation of two additional Sentencing Commissioners. The Commission has scheduled a hearing on April 18, 2017, to discuss amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines for 2017. Some of the proposed amendments include:

  1. An amendment that would provide a lower base offense level for first-time offenders. In this regard, the Commission is considering two options:

Option 1 provides a decrease of 1 level from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three. Option 2 provides a decrease of 2 levels if the final offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three is less than level 16, or a decrease of 1 level if the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three is level 16 or greater.

  1. An amendment would no longer impose criminal history points for juvenile convictions. Convictions that occurred before age 18 would continue to count if the defendant was treated as an “adult” at the time of conviction.
  1. A separate amendment would remove criminal history points for sentences tied to revocation of “probation, parole, supervised release, special parole, or mandatory release.”
  1. Another amendment would remove the language from the acceptance of responsibility guideline that made it possible to lose acceptance making losing objections to relevant conduct at sentencing. Under the current guideline, acceptance can be denied if “a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.” Under the amended guideline, “a defendant who makes a nonfrivolous challenge to relevant conduct is not precluded from” receiving acceptance of responsibility points.

There is no discussion in the proposed amendments about retroactivity. We will know more about retroactivity when the commission votes. If the Commission declines to make an amendment retroactive, individuals who have already been sentenced cannot benefit from the change in law (unless the amendment is a “clarifying” amendment, which none of these amendments are). The Commission considers amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines at least once a year.

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Recommended for you

Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions

At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…

Read More about Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions

Drug Treatment And Vocational Training Improper Sentencing Considerations

Christopher Thornton moved for a downward variance at sentencing arguing, among other things, that “in-prison treatment during the proposed thirty-eight months would help mitigate any potential risk he posed to the community.” The district court denied the motion, but in doing so said that Thornton had “mental-health issues, and he needs drug treatment” and that…

Read More about Drug Treatment And Vocational Training Improper Sentencing Considerations

Amendment 782 Motion Reconsideration

Reinaldo Rivera moved for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, commonly known as “drugs minus 2.” The district court granted the motion and reduced his sentence to 420 months from LIFE. But in doing so, the district court believed Rivera’s mandatory minimum was 30 years for his CCE conviction.…

Read More about Amendment 782 Motion Reconsideration