09-1249 & 09-1551 U.S. v. Reyes-Hernandez

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Fast-track disparities

Sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs can be considered by district court judges in non-fast-track districts when crafting individual sentences.

“Congress certainly did not instruct the Commission to link § 5K3.1 to statutory maximums or minimums, cf. Corner, 598 F.3d at 416, nor does § 5K3.1 explicitly address appropriate sentences in non-fast-track districts. We are instructed that we must ‘decline[] to read any implicit directive into the congressional silence,’ Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 87. Because there is no express restriction of judicial consideration of fast-track disparity in the plain language of the PROTECT Act, we refuse to read any such restriction into § 5K3.1. See Camacho-Arellano, 614 F.3d at 249 (‘In effect, while Congress intended to create room for courts in fast-track jurisdictions to treat defendants in a certain manner, it did nothing to prohibit judges in non-fast-track districts from treating defendants the same way.’); Arrelucea- Zamudio, 581 F.3d at 151 (“The PROTECT Act contains no express congressional fast-track directive that would constrain a sentencing judge’s discretion to vary from the Guidelines.”); Rodriguez, 527 F.3d at 227 (‘The Act, by its terms, neither forbids nor discourages the use of a particular sentencing rationale, and it says nothing about a district court’s discretion to deviate from the guidelines based on fast-track disparity.’).”

Vacated and Remanded.

09-1249 & 09-1551 U.S. v. Reyes-Hernandez

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Der-Yeghiayan, Kennelly, JJ., Kanne, J.

Full Text