How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Impact Your Criminal Case Outcome
How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Impact Your Criminal Case Outcome
The federal sentencing guidelines have a major influence on the outcome of federal criminal cases. Implemented in 1987, the guidelines were designed to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities and promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing. While originally mandatory, the Supreme Court’s 2005 Booker decision made the guidelines advisory. However, they remain the starting point for all federal sentences and judges are still required to properly calculate and consider them. So how exactly do the guidelines impact federal criminal cases today?
Calculating the Guidelines Range
The guidelines provide detailed instructions for determining a numeric offense level and criminal history category, which are then used together with the Sentencing Table to produce a sentencing range expressed in months. This calculation takes into account factors like:
- The defendant’s actual offense conduct
- Relevant offender characteristics
- Victim impact
- Role in the offense
- Obstruction of justice
- Acceptance of responsibility
The more serious the offense and extensive the criminal history, the higher the guideline range. So two defendants convicted of the same crime may face very different guideline ranges based on their individual offense conduct and backgrounds.
While judges have discretion to impose sentences outside the guideline range under Booker, the properly calculated range remains an important benchmark. In Gall v. United States (2007), the Supreme Court held that district courts “must begin their analysis with the Guidelines and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process.”
Upward and Downward Departures
Under the guidelines, judges may impose sentences above or below the calculated range if certain factors exist that make the case unusual. These are called “departures” and require the judge to explain on the record why the departure is justified.
Upward departures above the guideline range may be warranted where the court finds:
- Extreme psychological injury to a victim
- Extreme conduct by the defendant
- Criminal history score substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s past conduct
Downward departures below the guideline range may be appropriate where:
- The victim’s wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior
- The defendant committed the offense to avoid a perceived greater harm
- The defendant’s diminished capacity contributed to the commission of the offense
The further the sentence is from the guidelines, the more compelling the judge’s justification must be. So while departures are permitted, the guidelines still exert influence.
Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Some federal offenses like drug trafficking, firearms violations, and child exploitation carry mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by statute. This means judges cannot go below a certain sentence length regardless of the calculated guideline range.
Mandatory minimums trump the advisory guidelines and constrain judicial discretion. A defendant subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum will receive at least that sentence, even if the guidelines suggest something far less. However, the guidelines still impact the ultimate sentence length above the minimum.
Plea Agreements and Substantial Assistance
Because over 97% of federal criminal cases end in guilty pleas pursuant to plea bargains, plea practices substantially impact sentencing outcomes. Prosecutors may agree to dismiss charges or make certain sentencing recommendations that influence the ultimate sentence.
Sentences can also be reduced below both the guidelines and any applicable mandatory minimums under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) and Section 5K1.1 of the guidelines. This allows judges to depart downward to reward defendants who provide “substantial assistance” to the government in investigating and prosecuting others. The ability to earn such reductions provides strong incentives for defendants to cooperate with prosecutors.
Recent Commission Actions to Strengthen Guideline Influence
While the influence of the guidelines diminished for some offenses after Booker, recent U.S. Sentencing Commission actions appear to have strengthened their influence for certain high-volume crimes:
Drug Trafficking
In 2014, the Commission voted to reduce guideline sentencing levels for most drug trafficking offenses by two levels. This addressed longstanding criticisms that the drug guidelines resulted in overly severe sentences not supported by empirical evidence. By better aligning the ranges with average sentences judges were already imposing, this strengthened the influence of the drug trafficking guideline.
Illegal Reentry
A 2016 comprehensive revision to the illegal reentry guideline narrowed the differences between the guideline minimums and average sentences imposed. The amendment accounted for important variations in offense conduct more precisely and reduced severity for less serious offenders. Making the ranges better reflect actual sentencing practices bolstered the influence of this frequently applied guideline.
The Continued Importance of the Guidelines After Booker
While no longer binding, the guidelines remain the essential starting point for all federal sentences. They anchor the judge’s discretionary decision-making process and the appellate review of sentences for reasonableness. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “in the usual sentencing, . . . the judge will use the Guidelines range as the starting point in the analysis and impose a sentence within the range.” (Peugh v. U.S. (2013))
So while judges may exercise greater discretion in the post-Booker era, the guidelines still significantly impact outcomes. Careful consideration of how the guidelines apply is therefore critical for any federal defendant. Consulting an experienced federal criminal defense attorney is essential to understanding guideline calculations and developing an effective sentencing strategy. The guidelines provide the framework for navigating the complex federal sentencing process.