United States Sentencing Commission

Don’t Face Federal Charges Alone: Consult Our Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you’re under the possibility of being charged with a federal criminal offense, time is of the essence. Facing federal charges is a complex and daunting process that requires focused legal expertise. Don’t navigate this terrain alone. At Cofer Luster Criminal Defense Lawyers, we focus in federal criminal defense, providing you with the tactical and knowledgeable guidance you need.

Reach out to a lawyer who understands the intricacies of federal laws and how to defend you effectively. Call us now at (682) 777-3336 or contact us online for a consultation. Your future is too important to leave to chance; secure skilled representation today.


Why The USSC Matters To You

If you’re on the precipice of navigating the complex waters of the federal criminal justice system, understanding the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) is not just beneficial—it’s essential. As an agency that has a lasting impact on the federal sentencing landscape, the USSC can directly or indirectly influence the outcome of your case.

Unpacking The United States Sentencing Commission

The USSC is an independent agency operating under the judicial branch of the U.S. government. It’s an agency composed of seven voting members. These members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Historical Context: The Need For Sentencing Reform

Prior to 1984, the federal sentencing landscape was like the Wild West: lawless, inconsistent, and highly dependent on the presiding judge’s views. This led to widely varying sentences for similar offenses, causing public uproar and legislative concern. To bring more consistency and fairness to the sentencing process, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, giving birth to the USSC. The agency was mandated to establish federal sentencing guidelines and rein in the seemingly uncontrolled discretion exercised by judges.

Creation Of The United States Sentencing Commission

To address concerns and to bring transparency and fairness to sentencing, Congress established the United States Sentencing Commission as part of the SRA.

Core Functions Of The Sentencing Commission

The SRA outlined two core functions for the Sentencing Commission:

  1. Develop federal sentencing guidelines.
  2. Issue reports recommending changes to federal sentencing legislation.

Additionally, the Commission was instructed to establish a data collection program and a training branch to help educate those involved in the federal sentencing process. Over time, the Commission has grown to include approximately 100 professionals specializing in criminal justice and sentencing.

Fundamental Shift In Sentencing Approach

The Sentencing Reform Act fundamentally transformed federal sentencing. Prior to the SRA, parole was a key element of the federal sentencing system. The new guidelines abolished parole and introduced a more structured approach to sentencing. Furthermore, Congress specifically instructed the Commission to design guidelines that increased penalties for serious white-collar crimes and violent offenses.

Guidelines Development

The guidelines established by the Commission focus on narrowing the degree of judicial discretion in three ways:

  1. By creating a detailed set of sentencing guidelines that reliably categorize and measure offenses.
  2. By limiting the consideration of personal characteristics of defendants in sentencing.
  3. By setting a rule that the maximum and minimum of a given sentencing range should not differ by more than 25 percent or six months, also known as the “25 percent rule.”

Sentencing Factors: Unified Objectives

The SRA outlines seven factors a court must consider when sentencing. These include the nature of the offense, the history of the defendant, and the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Commission. This approach was designed to achieve a balance between fairness and consistency, ensuring that similarly situated defendants receive comparable sentences.

The Amendment Cycle: Keeping Guidelines Current

The Sentencing Commission regularly updates the guidelines through an annual amendment cycle. This includes periods for public comment and public hearings before proposed amendments are adopted. Once approved by the Commission, these amendments are submitted to Congress, which has the option to modify or disapprove them.

Occasionally, amendments may lower the sentencing range for specific offenses. When this happens, the Commission decides whether to apply these changes retroactively. If retroactivity is approved, inmates already serving sentences can petition the courts for a reduced sentence within the new guidelines.

The Booker Decision: Making Guidelines Advisory

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker that the guidelines were unconstitutional in their mandatory form. Following this ruling, the guidelines became advisory, giving judges more leeway while still using the guidelines as a starting point for sentencing.

The Intricacies Of Federal Sentencing Guidelines

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are a pivotal component in the U.S. judicial system, serving as a roadmap for judges to hand down sentences in federal criminal cases. However, these guidelines are often complex and influenced by various legal precedents and circumstances.

Unpacking The Federal Sentencing Guidelines

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a structure that judges consult when determining a sentence for a specific criminal act. They offer a systematic approach, using numerical levels to represent the severity of various crimes and adjustments.

Base Offense Level: The Starting Point

Every crime is assigned a base offense level, which is a numerical representation of the crime’s severity. This level sets the initial benchmark for a sentence. For instance, trespassing has a base offense level of 4, which would represent a less severe crime compared to kidnapping, with a base offense level of 32.

Specific Offense Characteristics: The Modifiers

These are elements that can either increase or decrease the base offense level depending on the specifics of the crime committed. In the case of fraud, the level can be modified based on the monetary loss involved. In robbery cases, the use or discharge of a firearm would increase the base level.

Adjustments: The Fine Tuning

Adjustments are a set of factors that can apply universally across different kinds of offenses. These adjustments can be victim-related, tied to the offender’s role in the crime, or linked to the obstruction of justice. For instance, if the offender played a minor role in the offense, a 4-level decrease could be applied. If they obstruct justice, an increase by 2 levels could be implemented.

Criminal History: The Backstory

Each offender is categorized into one of six criminal history categories, which take into account prior criminal conduct. Category I is the least severe, often containing first-time offenders. Conversely, Category VI is the most severe and includes individuals with extensive criminal histories.

Multiple Counts: The Aggregator

When an individual is convicted of multiple crimes, the guidelines offer a formula for a “combined offense level.” The most severe crime is the starting point, and the other counts adjust the level incrementally, adding complexities to the sentencing process.

Acceptance Of Responsibility: The Final Factor

In the last stage of determining the final offense level, the judge can consider if the offender has accepted responsibility for their actions. If this is established, a two-level decrease in the offense level might be applicable. This often relies on factors such as an admission of guilt, making restitution, or pleading guilty.

Departures: When Guidelines Don’t Suffice

Judges are not shackled to the guideline range. In the presence of extraordinary circumstances, either aggravating or mitigating, judges can “depart” from the guideline range. However, they must provide a written rationale for such a departure to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.