United States v. Crawford

520 F.3d 1072 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was convicted by a jury of two counts of distribution of heroin and distribution of crack cocaine. The district court found that he was a 'career offender' under the guidelines. D's sentence was at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. D's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Several weeks later, the Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington wherein in the context of mandatory state sentencing guidelines, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by D. D revived his appeal. While this motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker where it held that the Sentencing Guidelines were merely advisory, not mandatory, and that appellate courts should review sentences for 'reasonableness.' In August 2005, the appeals court vacated Ds sentence and remanded his case for re-sentencing in light of Booker. The district court imposed the same sentence as before. appealed his re-sentencing, but it was deferred until after the Supreme Court decided Rita v. United States, Gall v. United States, and Kimbrough v. United States. Rita held that courts may presume the reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences. Gall held that appellate courts must review all sentences, within and without the Guidelines range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Kimbrough held that the Guidelines for crack cocaine are advisory only, and 'it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder cocaine disparity yields a sentence 'greater than necessary' to achieve 18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)'s purposes.