Amicus Curiae Brief — Rita v. United States

Supreme Court brief2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

4) | DEC 18 2005 |

No. 06-5754

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

VICTOR A. RITA, JR.,

PETITIONER,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENT.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE NEW YORK COUNCIL OF

DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICUS CURIAE IN

SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

DOUGLAS A. BERMAN ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO

THE OHIO STATE Counsel of Record

UNIVERSITY LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW ~—s- 885 THIRD AVENUE

55 WEST 12TH AVENUE SUITE 1000

COLUMBUS, OH 43210 NEW YORK, NY 10022

(212) 906-1200

JONATHAN BACH

PAUL H. SCHWARTZ NATHAN H. SELTZER

ELLIOT F. KAYE LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

D. SEAN NATION 555 11TH STREET, N.W.

COOLEY GODWARD SUITE 1000

KRONISH LLP WASHINGTON, DC 20004

THE GRACE BUILDING

1114 AVENUE OF THE Counsel for Amicus Curiae

AMERICAS

46TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10036

a ——————————— —a—nXnX—X—n—n———s— ss

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Was the district court’s choice of within-Guidelines

sentence reasonable?

In making that determination, is it consistent with

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to

accord a presumption of reasonableness to within-

Guidelines sentences?

. If so, can that presumption justify a sentence

imposed without an explicit analysis by the district

court of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and any other

factors that might justify a lesser sentence?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED...............s.sssssssssrsssssrerssorerereseneneness i

TATE Te Gr CRU ee i a vccccsccscenesccsesensscsctemassssesemenmmmmmanens ii

TABLES GE AUTRE Mii cecccccssesessscsssnssesnsscsenseqseessnnseonssntes iv

STATEMENT OF INTEREST. ..............ccsccscsssessssesersscssseserersese l

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. .............ccsssssssssssssssrssssssessesenrenees 2

IEE serccescttetiniccerserecretinnivatinenastanrpaiaiaiemmannienemnensl 4

I. THE EMPIRICAL DATA REVEAL NON-

PARSIMONIOUS PATTERNS IN THE

APPLICATION OF REASONABLENESS

INO sinecisnnscssnetstiantnsinnsiaginiaieniiisistanninigtmaiianmennaieii 5

II. INATTENTIVENESS TO THE TEXT OF

SECTION 3553(a) HAS SKEWED |

REASONABLENESS REVIEW...........ccccccccsssssssssessenees 9

A. Section 3553(a) Requires District Courts

To Consider Seven Factors And To

Impose A Sentence Sufficient But Not

Greater Than Necessary To Comply

With Congress’s Statement Of The

Purposes Of Sentencing...........sssssresessseseeeeeenesenees 9

B. A Presumption Of Reasonableness For

Within-Guidelines Sentences Is

Incompatible With The Text Of Section

ili |

Ill. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION’S OWN

ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS THE FLAWS OF

A PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS

FOR WITHIN-GUIDELINES SENTENCEB........... 15

A. The Guidelines Do Not Take Into

Account All Of The Sentencing Factors

That Congress Requires District Courts

AREER ORE Db TTS oR MNOS 16

B. The Sentencing Commission Has Found

That The Guidelines Can Result In

Sentences That Do Not Effectively

Serve The Goals Of Section 3553(a) ......c.sccsseseeee 19

[V. A DISTRICT COURT MUST STATE ON THE

RECORD ITS REASONS FOR THE

oF: | eee 23

See a sciecicsinsehinccihisiconticanniosbiniiaieitadadedibaiaaaiaetanenedapitibas 24

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Board of Pardons v. Allen,

Be es Se ee rctertieecttinnintininsnninninimmnneiinn 10

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,

| eee 12, 13

Koon v. United States,

3 8 ft) 0) 4, 17, 25

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson,

SD Te, Ge Ci iicccscrernecccntcstensiccsseseennecnnmnnsseniins i)

Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.,

gE ee 12

Jones v. United States,

Be es tte cecnsiecenenieanvsnnetsnnenemanisinenvemennes 10

Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach,

a a eG rcctescretnienneinmeinnmanne 10

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.,

RE 12

United States v. Alonzo,

485 F.3d 551 (Gth Cir. 2O06).....crcorcccsrcscssceressescoseccesesees 11

United States v. Booker, :

8 passim

United States v. Boscarino,

— § eg . f. 4 | 22

United States v. Buchanan,

449 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2006)........ccccccccsccrssssscsseeserceseeees 13

United States v. Carey,

368 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Wis. 2005) .....cccccccscceeeeees 14

United States v. Charles,

ae Fa a a Ca Be cececscisescentitetisciieicciaiaeiaii 15

United States v. Cooper,

437 F Bd BB4 (Gd Clr, S006) .....cccccsccccsccccccecccesscsescccseseeses 8

United States v. Cunningham,

429 F’.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2O05)........eccccccccecessesescecescorseress 24

United States v. Davern,

970 F’. 2d 1490 (6th Cir. 1992) ..........ccsesscesees 17, 18, 20

United States v. Davis,

458 F'.3d 491 (Gth Cir. 2006)..........ccccccccocsscecescorsesecserere 15

United States v. Dorcely,

454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir, 2006)............ccccescescoccossorsorencees 11

United States v. Fernandez,

SED Fe FG Ga Be ceseccstnesesssccbcncnniprinniesinintlascicliniiad 8

United States v. Green,

436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006) ........ccccccccccesesesseeseeee 11,13

United States v. Griffin,

187 Fed. Appx. 13 (1st Cir. 2006)...........cccccsscceeesesesseees 6

United States v. Hernandez-Castillo,

44D F 3d 1187 (10th Cir. BODOG) ......cccccoscossccccecscecesceccsseee 7

United States v. Hunt,

459 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir, 2006)...............sccccccccsccsseseceees 13

United States v. Jimenez-Beltre,

440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) ............ccccercssseeseeeserees 14, 24

United States v. Kristl,

437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2006)............:-ccsessseseeeseseseees 11

United States v. Lincoln,

413 F.3d 716 (Sth Cir. 2005).......ccscccccecsersrsereesscsssssssees 11

United States v. Mykytiuk,

415 F.3d G06 (7th Cir. 2005)............sceccsccersesereereees 11,12

United States v. Pelletier,

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29214 (1st Cir. 2006)...........+ 8

United States v. Peyla,

2006 WL 3610013 (7th Cir. 2006) ...........cccceceeseeeeeeeeees 6

United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.,

a iccsticnncncesutnceniastzancesnscssnesmnsemmnens ll

United States v. Talley,

431 F.3d 784 (11th Cir. 2005).............cscssccsrssssrssesseeees 8

United States v. Vonner,

452 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2006), vacated by 2006

U.S. App. LEXIS 27661 (6th Cir. 2006) ...........2::00+ 10

United States v. Williams,

436 F.3d TOS (Gthi Cir. S006) .cccccccccscccccccsccesccccsscccssccesees ll

United States v. Wurzinger,

467 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2006) .........cccccessseseeserereeeseseees 14

United States v. Yopp,

453 F.3d 770 (Gth Cir. 2006) ............ccsscsrssrcssssseseees ——

vii

United States v. Zavala,

443 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated by 462

Fe re I iensinristrcacersiaiiininiinaiiiaatineaaiiaiianaini 13

STATUTES

Bae itaietacetsnscstnthianhininiaibiiiatisiaaditiatatineaitiiins 1, 4, 9, 10, 24

re er a TS aT 18

OTHER AUTHORITY

Albert W. Alschuler, Disparity: The Normative and

Empirical Failure of the Federal Guidelines,

a i is SI I ccncecicncitcnenrntntnicsenintnensniiais 19, 22

Douglas A. Berman, Crack and sentencing and the

anti-parsimony pandemic, Sentencing Law

& Policy Weblog, available at

http://sentencing.typepad.com/

sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/06/crack_se

cic crsccestntnstarnsinnsticniciniainsiiiiatsiiiaaciinimstasassinnin 14

Richard S. Frase, Punishment Purposes, 58 Stan. L.

RINE AE LA See SRI cE Pe 14

Gerald W. Heaney, The Reality of Guidelines

Sentencing: No End to Disparity, 28 Am.

Se, ins, CRN I earrectteieensnctsiccieentenensccoenicsicniend 22

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Speech at the

American Bar Association Annual Meeting

kr nr re ee a OO eT IE 14

David L. McColgin & Brett G. Sweitzer, Grid &

Bear It, 29 Champion 50 (2005)...........cccsssesserssereseeees 14

Viii

United States v. Hartley,

CR No. 2:06-00017, Tr. 7:24-9:24, Aug. 10,

2006, available at www.fd.org/

HartleyTranscript8. 10.06 ..........ccsscsssssesssersseneesneneeeneeres 9

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Fifteen Years of

Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment Of

How Well The Federal Criminal Justice

System Is Achieving The Goals Of

Sentencing Reform (2004) ..........0ssessesseeseeeseeres passim

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Downward

Departures from the Federal Sentencing

a 17

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Measuring

Recidivism: The Criminal History

Computation of the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines, a Component of the 15 Year

Beemer, CIB acces cece ccecessersessnssccccnscsznnsnisonsnsnsessnsssenssesss 18

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary Quarterly

Data Report, 4th Quarter Release,

Preliminary Fiscal Year 2006 Data Through

September BO, BO0G............c.scecccscsccsesscsvseseesceccecsconssneesees 8

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Ch. 1, Pt. A(3) (1988) ..............- 16

Webster’s New World Dictionary

(2d College Eod. 19B4)..........0.0-csscscsccecccscsvsccscscsoseseceseooes 10

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The New York Council of Defense Lawyers (“NYCDL”)

is a not-for-profit professional association of approximately

200 lawyers (including many former federal prosecutors)

whose principal area of practice is the defense of criminal

cases in the federal courts of New York.! NYCDL’s mission

includes protecting and ensuring individual rights

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution by rule of law through

education; supporting and advancing the criminal defense

function by enhancing the quality of defense representation;

taking positions on important defense issues; promoting

study and research in the criminal justice system; and

promoting the proper administration of criminal justice.

As amicus curiae, NYCDL offers the Court the

perspective of very experienced practitioners who regularly

handle some of the most complex and significant criminal

cases in the federal courts. NYCDL has an interest in this

case insofar as it will determine whether within-guidelines

sentences are presumptively reasonable and whether

federal criminal defendants receive the full benefit of the

individualized sentencing process required by Congress in

the Sentencing Reform Act and this Court in United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We believe that it is

imperative to the protection of our clients’ rights and to the

establishment of a more just sentencing system that courts

of appeals consider all of the factors enumerated in 18

U.S.C. §3553(a) when reviewing’ sentences for

unreasonableness. Review of all of the statutory factors is

necessary to ensure that district courts give reasoned

consideration to each individual defendant’s circumstances

when “impos|ing] a sentence sufficient, but not greater than

1 Petitioner has filed a general consent for amicus briefs in this case,

and a letter of consent from Respondent has been submitted concurrently

with this filing. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in

part, and no person other than the amici, their members, and their

counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of

this brief. S. Ct. R. 37.6.

necessary” to comply with the statutory purposes of

sentencing.

To assist this Court, NYCDL has undertaken an

analysis of all post-Booker reasonableness review cases

captured by its search terms (described in the appendix

attached hereto (“App.”)), from January 1, 2006 through

November 16, 2006.2 The complete results of NYCDL’s

work should help this Court appreciate the ways in which

reasonableness review has been applied by the courts of

appeals. The data suggest that all the courts of appeals—

and especially those explicitly applying a presumption that

within-guidelines sentences are reasonable—have failed to

follow the parsimony command Congress set forth in Section

3553(a).8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In Booker, this Court developed a remedy for

constitutional problems with the operation of the Sentencing

Reform Act: It held that Section 3553(a) governs both

district courts’ sentencing decisions and appellate review of

those decisions. Congress has directed district courts to

consider all seven factors enumerated in Section 3553(a), not

just the guidelines. In Booker, this Court instructed the

circuits to review sentences for unreasonableness, guided by

all of the factors listed in the statute. 543 U.S. at 261

(appellate courts are to assess unreasonableness “with

regard to § 3553(a)”).

When Booker was decided, “no one kn{ew] ... how

advisory Guidelines and ‘unreasonableness’ review w(ould]

function in practice.” 5438 U.S. at 311 (Scalia, J., dissenting

2 The starting date was chosen to avoid the need to filter out the large

number of early post-Booker decisions that did not involve

unreasonableness review, but instead addressed issues such as whether a

pre-Booker sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing in

light of Booker. The end date is shortly after this Court granted

certiorari in this case. See App. at la n.l. NYCDL’s appendix is also

available at http://www.nycdl.org.

3 This brief focuses principally on the second question presented.

in part). In the almost two years since Booker, the courts of

appeals appear to have created their own distinctive de jure

and de facto standards of review, which find no basis in

Congress’s statutory text and are entirely inconsistent with

the parsimony provision of Section 3553(a). ———

NYCDL’s findings reveal that the courts of appeals are

universally affirming within-guidelines sentences. NYCDL

discovered that only one within-guidelines sentence has

been reversed as substantively unreasonable in at least

1,152 appeals. See App. at 3a. Sentences outside the

advisory-guidelines range, however, receive inconsistent

treatment in favor of higher sentences. The courts have

been deferential to above-guidelines sentences, but have

collectively disfavored below-guidelines sentences appealed

by the government. In those circuits formally applying a

presumption of reasonableness nearly every below-

guidelines sentence appealed by the government has been

reversed.

The results of reasonableness review are especially

telling in the Fourth Circuit, from which this case arises.4

For example, the court affirmed all 201 within-guidelines

sentences appealed. See App. at 3a-4a, 43a-7la. Nine of ten

above-guidelines sentences appealed by defendants were

affirmed as reasonable (including some sentences in which

the district court doubled and tripled the term of

imprisonment relative to the guidelines range). See App. at

4a, 39a-40a. Yet all of the nine below-guidelines sentences

appealed by the government were found unreasonable and

reversed (including some sentences only modestly below the

guidelines). See App. at 4a, 42a-43a.

These patterns, which strongly suggest that courts are

not applying review for unreasonableness in a manner

consistent with Section 3553(a), especially the parsimony

provision, likely result from two errors: (1) a general failure

4 The data from the Eighth Circuit are similar, as discussed in Brief of

New York Council of Defense Lawyers, as Amicus Curiae Supporting

Petitioner, Claiborne v. United States, No. 06-5618 (2006).

to attend to the words Congress used in Section 3553(a) and

(2) a mistaken assumption that the guidelines incorporate all

of the required Section 3553(a) considerations.

First, the plain language of Section 3553(a) requires a

district court to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not

greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of”

sentencing set forth in Section 3553(a)(2), while

“consider[ing]” seven specified factors, only one of which is

the guidelines range. Very few courts of appeals have even

mentioned this parsimony provision when reversing below-

guidelines sentences and when affirming above-guidelines

sentences. - Moreover, the plain language does not

contemplate—or leave room for—the extra-textual

presumption adopted by the courts of appeals to

consistently affirm within-guidelines sentences. Cf. Koon v.

United States, 518 U.S. 81, 108 (1996) (explaining that “[s]o

long as the overall sentence is ‘sufficient, but not greater

than necessary, to comply’ with the above-listed goals, the

statute is satisfied”) (quoting § 3553(a)).

Second, courts have wrongly assumed that the

guidelines account for all of the other Section 3553(a)

factors. But while the courts stress that the USS.

Sentencing Commission has studied and revised the

guidelines for eighteen years, they have ignored the

Commission’s own declaration following its comprehensive

study that “the reformed sentencing system has fallen short

of the] ideal in several respects” and has failed to fully

achieve “the goals of sentence reform.” U.S. Sentencing

Commission, Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An

Assessment Of How Well The Federal Criminal Justice

System Is Achieving The Goals Of Sentencing Reform 144

(2004) (“USSC Assessment Report”). The Commission has

expressly and repeatedly found that, in many circumstances,

the guidelines are not parsimonious and do not serve the

goals set forth in Section 3553(a)(2).

ARGUMENT

The plain language of Section 3553(a) does not support a

presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines

sentences and the Commission’s own analysis undermines

the basis for any presumption. Nevertheless, the data in our

empirical study reveal that the courts of appeals are

operating as if the guidelines fulfill the mandates of Section

3553(a). The consequences of these errors reinforce the

conclusion that the courts of appeals have raisunderstood

and misapplied this Court’s remedy in Booker, including its

directive that “Section 3553(a) ... sets forth numerous

factors that guide sentencing. Those factors in turn will

guide appellate courts ... in determining whether a sentence

is reasonable.” Jd. at 261.

I. THE EMPIRICAL DATA REVEAL NON-

PARSIMONIOUS PATTERNS IN THE

APPLICATION OF REASONABLENESS

REVIEW

The analysis conducted by NYCDL incorporated 1,152

within-guidelines sentences appealed by defendants. See

App. at 2a-3a. These sentences were affirmed in 1,136 cases

and vacated in only 16 cases. Jd. at 3. Moreover, 15 of the

sentences were vacated for procedural reasons—that is, the

court of appeals held that the district court did not

adequately explain its reasons for the sentence imposed and

therefore adequate appellate review was not possible. /d.

Only one sentence out of 1,152 within-guidelines sentences

challenged on appeal for reasonableness has been found to

be substantively unreasonable. /d. at 3a, 156a.

The Commission has in its reports, discussed infra,

repeatedly stated that sentences recommended by the

guidelines in many classes of cases are often greater than

necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes Congress

described in Section 3553(a)(2). The Commission’s findings

should prompt suspicion about an appellate pattern in which

less than .08% of appealed within-guidelines sentences are

reversed as substantively unreasonable.

Moreover, if the guidelines are truly viewed as a

benchmark of reasonableness by the courts of appeals, even

though the Commission itself does not espouse this view, see

generally USSC Assessment Report, one would expect

those courts to be equally concerned about variances above

the guidelines range and those that vary below the range.

But the pattern of appellate review tells a different story.

NYCDL’s_ study included 154 above-guidelines

sentences appealed by defendants arguing that the sentence

was unreasonable. Only seven of these sentences were

found to be unreasonable. See App. at 2a. But, the courts of

appeals have been far less deferential, and nearly intolerant,

when a district court exercises its discretion to impose a

below-guidelines sentence. The government has appealed

71 below-guidelines sentences and achieved 60 reversals.

Id.5

NYCDL’s study also reveals that the formal adoption of

a presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines

sentences seems to affect the review of even those

sentences not within the guidelines. In the circuits that

have formally adopted this presumption, there were 51

below-guidelines sentences appealed by the government.

Forty-seven of these sentences were vacated as

unreasonable. Jd. at 3a. In those circuits not formally

invoking a presumption, the government has prevailed in 13

of its 20 appeals. /d.6

The reasonableness review outcomes are especially non-

parsimonious in some circuits. In the First, Fourth, and

Fifth Circuits, the government has been successful in all of

5 Although it is likely that the government is somewhat more selective

in its appeals, the stark difference between the findings for above- and

below-guidelines sentences suggests that selectivity cannot explain

everything.

6 Additionally, below-guidelines sentences have proved immune from

reversal when a defendant appeals (0 reversals despite 138 appeals, App.

at 2a), and some courts appear to have suggested that in these

circumstances, defendants have nothing legitimate to complain about.

See, e.g., United States v. Griffin, 187 Fed. Appx. 13, at *3 (1st Cir. 2006)

(rejecting defendant’s argument for a lower sentence because “a sentence

below the guideline range ... suggests mitigating factors are already at

work”); United States v. Peyla, 2006 WL 3610113, at *2 (7th Cir. 2006)

(finding “nothing unreasonable” about a sentence that was already one

month below the guidelines range).

its below-guidelines sentence appeals. Jd. at 5a-6a (First

Circuit, 4/4; Fourth Circuit, 9/9; Fifth Circuit, 5/5). In the

Second, Third, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, no

defendant has successfully challenged an above-guidelines

sentence as unreasonable. Jd. at 5-6 (Second: 0/6; Third:

0/10; Seventh: 0/8; Tenth: 0/8; Eleventh: 0/23). The pattern

in the Eighth Circuit exemplifies how far the circuits have

strayed from the statute: there, only one of 22 above-

guidelines sentences appealed by defendants has been

reversed, in stark contrast to the 27 of 28 below-guidelines

sentences appealed by the government that have been

vacated as unreasonable. /d. at 4a, 132a-34a, 137a-4la.

The message that emerges from this pattern of appellate

review is one that discourages district courts from the

exercise of thoughtful discretion in service to the full range

of considerations Congress articulated in Section 3553(a).7

The influence of the circuits’ singular focus on the guidelines

is illustrated by cases like Mr. Rita’s where substantial

evidence is presented regarding the particular defendant’s

circumstances indicating that a sentence below the

guidelines range would be “sufficient, but not greater than

necessary,” to achieve congressionai sentencing purposes.

Mr. Rita was a decorated veteran who served in the

Vietnam and Gulf Wars; suffers from serious health

problems due to exposure to Agent Orange and an injury

suffered in military service; and made a strong showing that

he would likely be the target of prison violence due to his

lengthy civilian government service including as an

immigration officer and investigator for the Department of

Homeland Security. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United

7 NYCDL’s findings may underestimate the non-parsimonious impact

of the courts of appeals reasonableness review. These numbers do not

capture those within-guidelines sentences that were not appealed, or the

significant number of appeals that continue to challenge only the

guidelines calculation. E.g., United States v. Hernandez-Castillo, 449

F.3d 1127, 1130 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Mr. Hernandez-Castillo does not

challenge the reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district

court.”).

States v. Rita at 13-16, No. 06-5754 (2006). Surely these

facts provide a sound basis under Section 3553(a) for a

sentence below the nearly three-years’ imprisonment

suggested by the guidelines. But the district judge and

court of appeals, drawn to the anchors provided by the

guidelines, rotely opted for a guidelines sentence without

any clear justification other than that it was a guidelines

sentence.

A presumption in favor of guidelines sentencing, and the

actual results of that presumption, necessarily pressure

district courts—especially in close cases—toward imposing

within-guidelines sentences to avoid the risk of reversal. It

is therefore not surprising that the Commission’s latest data

show that, as the guideline-centric patterns and rulings have

emerged from the courts of appeals, district judges over the

last six months have less frequently sentenced outside of the

guidelines. U.S. Sentencing Commission, Preliminary

Quarterly Data Report, 4th Quarter Release, Preliminary

Fiscal Year 2006 Data Through September 30, 2006. The

message sent is clear when the courts of appeals affirm

nearly all within- and above-guidelines sentences and

reverse most below-guidelines sentences.® The signal is to

employ less discretion, except if imposing a higher

sentence—which is precisely the opposite of what the

parsimony provision of Section 3553(a) expressly requires.

8 The circuits not expressly adopting a presumption have still made

clear to district courts that sentences within the guidelines range will

ordinarily be affirmed. See, ¢.g., See United States v. Pelletier, 2006 U.S.

App. LEXIS 29214, at *26-27 (ist Cir. 2006) (“[A] defendant who

attempts to brand a within-the-range sentence as unreasonable must

carry a heavy burden.”); United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 20, 27 (2d

Cir. 2006) (“We recognize that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a

Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of

sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances.”);

United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 331 (38d Cir. 2006) (“{A) within-

guidelines range sentence is more likely to be reasonable than one that

lies outside the advisory guidelines range ....”); United States v. Talley,

431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (“{O}rdinarily we would expect a

sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.”).

See, e.g., United States v. Hartley, CR No. 2:06-00017, Tr.

7:24-9:24, Aug. 10, 2006, available at www.fd.org/

HartleyTranscript8.10.06 (The Court: “(T]he Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeals ... has established a pretty rigid view that

the guidelines are not only presumptively reasonable, but

the requirement is that in order to sentence outside the

guidelines, you have to show that the guideline sentence is

in some fashion unreasonable it almost seems.”).

Il. INATTENTIVENESS TO THE TEXT OF

SECTION 3553(a) HAS SKEWED

REASONABLENESS REVIEW

This Court has instructed the courts of appeals to review

district courts’ compliance with Congress’s parsimony

statute for unreasonableness, “guid{ed]” by “Section

3553(a)[’s] ... numerous factors.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 261,

264.

A. Section 3553(a) Requires District Courts To

Consider Seven Factors And To Impose A

Sentence Sufficient But Not Greater Than

Necessary To Comply With Congress’s

Statement Of The Purposes Of Sentencing

“{IJn any case of statutory construction, [this Court’s]

analysis begins with ‘the language of the statute.’ And

where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it

ends there as well.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525

U.S. 432, 438 (1999) (citations omitted). The language of

Section 3553(a) is plain: it instructs district courts to

“consider” a number of factors, but has only one mandate—

the “court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater

than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in

paragraph (2).” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (emphasis added).9

9 Previously, the parsimony provision had to be applied in conjunction

with the statute’s primary mandate—§ 3553(b)’s requirement that the

court shall impose a guidelines sentence unless there was a basis for a

guidelines departure. In Booker, however, this Court excised § 3553(b),

after concluding that “(t]he remainder of the Act ‘functions

independently,” 543 U.S. at 259 (citation omitted), leaving the parsimony

The words of Section 3553(a) should be given their

“ordinary meaning.” Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848,

855 (2000) (citation omitted). Here, the parsimony provision

uses “the mandatory [term] ‘shall,’ which normally creates

an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.” Lexecon v.

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35

(1998); Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 374 (1987) (The

“use of the word shall” signifies “mandatory language.”);

United States v. Vonner, 452 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2006)

(“Complying with Section 3553(a) is not optional.”), vacated

by 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27661 (6th Cir. 2006). This

Court’s opinion in Booker itself recognizes that “shall” binds

district judges. 548 U.S. at 249 (explaining that Section

3553(b), providing that courts “shall” follow the guidelines,

renders them “mandatory”).

In serving the statute’s parsimony mandate, a district

court “shall consider” seven specific sentencing factors in

determining the parsimonious sentence that the court shall

impose. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (emphasis added).!0

“Consider,” of course, is commonly understood to mean, “to

think about,” Webster's New World Dictionary 303 (2d

College Ed. 1984), and it requires contemplation, but does

provision as the only direct statutory mandate that the district court

must follow. The purposes that Congress set forth in paragraph (2) are

“the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the

offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment

for the offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to

protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide

the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical

care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D).

10 The factors (apart from the guidelines, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4))

that a district court shall “consider” are: “the nature and circumstances of

the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” the

sentencing policies set forth by Congress, “the kinds of sentences

available,” pertinent policy statements from the Commission, “the need to

avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar

records who have been found guilty of similar conduct,” and “the need to

provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” Jd. §§ 3553(a)(1)-(3),

(5)-(7).

not go so far as to require action based on that

contemplation. The statute thus instructs district courts to

impose a “sentence sufficient, but not greater than

necessary to comply with the purposes of paragraph (2)” and

in the process of reaching that determination, the court

must think carefully about six additional factors, only one of

which is the advisory-guidelines range. “(Subsection (a) of

§ 3553 of the sentencing statute lists the Sentencing

Guidelines as one factor to be considered in imposing a

sentence.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 234. There is no hierarchy

among the factors a district court must “consider” and

nothing in the statutory language supports an interpretation

that Section 3553(a)(4)(A) is entitled to more weight than

other factors. As Justice Scalia observed, “[t]he statute

provides no order of priority among all those factors.” Jd. at

304-05 (dissenting in part). “Where, as here, the statute’s

language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce

it according to its terms.” United States v. Ron Pair

Enters, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) (citation omitted).

B. A Presumption Of Reasonableness For

Within-Guidelines Sentences Is Incompatible

With The Text Of Section 3553(a)

At least seven circuits have adopted an explicit

presumption of reasonableness and endorsed an approach to

sentencing that is less parsimonious and less individualized

than the statute unambiguously requires. This is true of at

least the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and

D.C. Circuits,!! where a “defendant can rebut this

presumption only by demonstrating that his or her

[guidelines] sentence is unreasonable when measured

11 See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006); United

Siates v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Williams,

436 F.3d 706 (6th Cir, 2006); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th

Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2005); United

States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Dorcely,

454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

against the factors set forth in § 3553(a).” Mykytiuk, 415

F.3d at 608 (emphasis added).

Because the guidelines had primacy and were legally

binding before Booker, it is perhaps not surprising that

circuit courts have elevated the guidelines above the other

factors enumerated in Section 3553(a) when conducting

reasonableness review. But an affinity for within-guidelines

sentences—whether through a formal presumption of

reasonableness or a pattern of affirmances—is inconsistent

with Section 3553(a) in two respects.

First, it endows the guidelines with a special, most-

favored status among Section 3553(a)’s factors that is

nowhere in the words of the statute enacted by Congress

(and left unchanged in two years since Booker) or this

Court’s opinion in Booker. Such a construction would

effectively read out of the statute and functionally nullify

Sections 3553(a)(1)-(3) and Sections 3553(5)-(7). Courts,

however, “are obliged to give effect, if possible, to every

word Congress used,” Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S.

330, 339 (1979), and where “{tJhe statute admits a reasonable

construction which gives effect to all of its provisions ...

[this Court] will not adopt a strained reading which renders

one part a mere redundancy,” Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.,

367 U.S. 3038, 308 (1961).

This Court has invalidated other judicially created

presumptions based on the satisfaction of one factor where

Congress has enumerated a list of factors to be

“considered.” In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S.

569, 594 (1994), the Court held that a presumption against

fair use based solely on the commercial nature of a parody

was incompatible with section 107 of the Copyright Act,

which lists four factors for courts to “consider{]” in

determining whether an artistic work is fair use. /d. at 577.

This Court explained: “The task is not to be simplified with

bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it

recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis ..... Nor may the

four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from

another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed

together, in light of the purposes of copyright.” Jd. at 577-78

(citations omitted).

The courts adopting a presumption of reasonableness for

within-guidelines sentences have effectively done what

Campbell prohibits—they have interpreted Section

3553(a)’s directive to “consider” the guidelines to mean

“follow unless,” by some undefined quantum of evidence, the

defendant can prove that a guidelines sentence is

inappropriate. The presumption “indicate[s] that the

Guideline range is to be used unless (by some evidentiary

standard) a party can prove to the contrary. That is much

more than a mere consult for advice, and the Guidelines are

to be no more than that.” United States v. Zavala, 443 F.3d

1165, 1169 (9th Cir.) (emphasis in original), vacated by 462

F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2006); accord United States v. Hunt, 459

F.3d 1180, 1185 (11th Cir. 2006). Because of heavy criminal

caseloads, it is perhaps understandable why circuits might

look for convenient “bright-line rules” like a presumption of

reasonableness to simplify their appellate task. But, as in

Campbell, this Court should make clear that, when the

statutory text demands a refined case-by-case analysis,

courts of appeals may not create extra-textual doctrines in

an effort to evade congressionally-imposed responsibilities.

Second, the “guidelines unless” approach promotes an

unthinking and reflexive adherence to the guidelines,

especially in close cases where, absent the presumption, a

below-guidelines sentence would be “sufficient, but not

greater than necessary” to meet the purposes of

sentencing.'2 The presumption, therefore, cannot be

12 Though the courts of appeals half-heartedly reject the suggestion

that the presumption says anything about sentences outside of the range,

Green, 436 F.3d at 457 (“A sentence falling outside of the properly

calculated Guidelines range is not ipso facto unreasonable.”), at the very

least, the presumption “cast(s) a discouraging shadow on trial judges who

otherwise would grant variances in exercising their independent

judgment.” United States v. Buchanan, 449 F 3d 731, 740 (6th Cir. 2006)

(Sutton, J., concurring).

reconciled with the parsimony provision established by

Congress as the primary directive in Section 3553(a).18

Confronted by text intolerant of that presumption, most

courts have simply chosen to ignore the parsimony

provision. See United States v. Jimenez-Beltre, 440 F.3d

514, 525 n.8 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc) (Lipez, J., dissenting)

(noting that the parsimony provision has received “scant

attention”). Only a handful of the more than 1,500 decisions

examined in NYCDL’s study even mention the parsimony

provision. Cf. Douglas A. Berman, Crack sentencing and

the anti-parsimony pandemic, Sentencing Law & Policy

Weblog, available at http://sentencing.typepad.com/

sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/06/crack_sentencin.html

(noting that circuit courts reversing below-guidelines crack

sentences have consistently avoided any mention of the

parsimony provision).

Some courts applying the presumption of reasonableness

have all but acknowledged that the presumption is

inconsistent with parsimony. In United States v.

Wurzinger, 467 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2006), for example,

the Seventh Circuit held that “(while we say nothing about

whether a lower sentence would have been equally

reasonable, age and illness do not, in the face of the

circumstances presented here, make Wurzinger’s sentence

unreasonable.” But, if the parsimony provision has any

meaning, then in the face of two equally sufficient sentences,

the court must impose the lower sentence. See, e.g., United

States v. Carey, 368 F. Supp. 2d 891, 895 n.4 (E.D. Wis. 2005)

(Adelman, J.) (“When two sufficient and reasonable

sentences are potentially applicable, the statute directs the

13 See, e.g., Richard S. Frase, Punishment Purposes, 58 Stan. L. Rev.

67, 83 (2005) (concluding that “the structure of section 3553(a), which

begins with the parsimony provision “sets overall limits on the crime-

control and other purposes which follow”); David L. McColgin & Brett G.

Sweitzer, Grid & Bear It, 29 Champion 50, 50 (2005) (stating that the

parsimony provision “is not just another ‘factor’ to be considered along

with others set forth in Section 3553(a) ... —it sets an independent limit

on the sentence a court may impose”).

court to choose the lesser one.”); United States v. Yopp, 453

F.3d 770, 774 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding that a higher sentence

imposed by the district court violated the parsimony

provision where the district court also articulated a lower

sentence that would satisfy the purposes of sentencing).

Some courts have even concluded that other statutory

factors to be “consider[ed]” can outweigh the mandate of the

parsimony provision. See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 458

F.3d 491, 495-96, 500 (6th Cir. 2006) (vacating below-

guidelines sentence and concluding that adherence to the

guidelines in order to avoid sentencing disparities

outweighed parsimony provision’s directive). More courts

have suggested that the guidelines sentences themselves

embody “sufficient” punishment—a conclusion supported by

the courts of appeals’ penchant for affirming all within-

guidelines sentences and finding below-guidelines sentences

unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Charles, 467 F.3d

828, 833 (8d Cir. 2006) (rejecting defendant’s challenge to a

high-end guidelines range sentence based on the parsimony

provision). That a sentence is “sufficient,” however, says

nothing about whether it is “greater than necessary.”

Ill. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION’S OWN

ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS THE FLAWS OF A

PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS FOR

WITHIN-GUIDELINES SENTENCES

Several courts have presumed that within-guidelines

sentences are reasonable because they believe that the

guidelines take into account all of the other Section 3553(a)

factors and that they further all of the goals of sentencing.

Both beliefs are misguided. The guidelines were not

promulgated to comply with the parsimony provision, and

the Commission itself has found that the guidelines

sentencing system “has fallen short ... in several respects.”

USSC Assessment Report at 144.

A. The Guidelines Do Not Take Into Account All

Of The Sentencing Factors That Congress

Requires District Courts To Consider

Many courts have justified the presumption of

reasonableness on the theory that the guidelines already

take into account all of the other Section 3553(a) factors.

That is wrong as a textual matter. The statutory

instructions that Congress gave to the Commission do not

task it with deciphering Section 3553(a)’s command that

sentencing courts “impose a sentence sufficient, but not

greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of

punishment. Additionally, when developing and revising

the guidelines, the Commission has never fully explored—

nor even formally addressed—whether the guidelines serve

this mandate.

Further, the process by which the guidelines were

created, and the Commission’s own statements regarding

their deficiencies, undermine any claim that the guidelines

render the Section 3553(a) factors extraneous. Congress

directed the Commission to promulgate guidelines to

further the purposes of sentencing enumerated in Section

3553(a)(2)—just punishment, deterrence, protection of the

public, and effective education and treatment for offenders.

The Commission, however, was comprised of members with

wide-ranging beliefs on criminal justice. Consequently, the

guidelines represent “compromises and contradictions in

both the goals to be achieved by sentencing reform and in

the mechanisms created to achieve them.” USSC

Assessment Report at 3. Importantly, the original

Guidelines Manual] suggests that the Commission considered

only “just deserts” and “crime control,” rather than all of the

statutory purposes, when promulgating the guidelines. See

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Ch. 1, Pt. A(3) (1988).

In addition, the Commission itself has recognized that it

could not “anticipate and describe in general guidelines

every possible circumstance relevant to sentencing in every

ease.” USSC Assessment Report at 32. The “difficulty of

foreseeing and capturing a single set of Guidelines that

encompasses the vast range of human conduct potentially

relevant to a sentencing decision” prompted the Commission

to permit departures from the guidelines, even under a

mandatory guidelines scheme. United States Sentencing

Commission, Downward Departures from the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines 3 (2003) (quoting U.S.S.G., Ch. 1, Pt.

A (4)(B) (Apr. 18, 1987)). The belief that the guidelines

account for all relevant sentencing factors is also

inconsistent with this Court’s decision in Koon. There, this

Court observed that “the Commission chose to prohibit

consideration of only a few factors, and not otherwise to

limit, as a categorical matter, the considerations that might

bear on the decision to depart.” 518 U.S. at 94.

At the same time, however, the Commission has added

additional, only marginally relevant, factors to be evaluated

in calculating a defendant’s offense level. This has led to

what the Commission has called “factor creep” in which

“{ajdjustments that appear necessary to achieve

proportional punishment may in actuality result in arbitrary

distinctions among offenders.” USSC Assessment Report at

137. According to the Commission, “(clomplex rules with

many adjustments may foster a perception of a precise

moral calculus but on closer inspection this precision proves

false.” Id. And, “as more and more adjustments are added

to the sentence rules, it is increasingly difficult to ensure

that the interactions among them, and their cumulative

effect, properly track offense seriousness.” Jd. “Factor

creep” has also been largely upward, while the Commission

has rejected consideration of significant mitigating factors

that bear upon personal culpability. See, e.g., United States

v. Davern, 970 F.2d 1490, 1503 (6th Cir. 1992) (en banc)

(Merritt, C.J., dissenting) (“The Commission has simply

ignored many of the provisions of the statute that weigh in

favor of leniency ... .”).

The Commission’s own series of reports on recidivism

also show that many factors affecting deterrence (a

statutory goal) are not captured by the guidelines. These

reports indicate that factors such as age, marital status,

employment history, and educational advancement affect

recidivism rates. See U.S. Sentencing Commission,

Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation

of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a Component of the 15

Year Report 29 (2004). Yet the guidelines’ policy

statements proclaim that these factors “are not ordinarily

relevant” to a district court’s sentencing decision. U.S.S.G.

§§ 5H1.1 (age), 5H1.2 (education), 5H1.5 (employment

record) 5H1.6 (family ties) (2006).

More specifically, Section 3553(a)(1) requires a district

court to “consider the nature and circumstances of the

offense and the history and characteristics of the

defendant.” See also 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall

be placed on the information concerning the background,

character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense

which a court of the United States may receive and consider

for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”). The

guidelines, of course, are generalizations and cannot possibly

take into account the history and characteristics of any

particular defendant. And, the guidelines specifically

prohibit consideration of many of a defendant’s personal

characteristics, including lack of guidance as a youth,

U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12, drug or alcohol dependence, id. § 5H1.4,

and post-sentencing rehabilitation, id. § 5K2.19. Other

discouraged factors include mental or emotional conditions,

id. § 5H1.3, physical condition, id. § 5H1.14, family

responsibilities, id. § 5H1.6, and public service or military

contributions, id. § 5H1.11. But, as Judge Merritt has

pointed out: “that the Commission has abdicated its duty to

consider the ‘purposes’ of sentencing and the personal

characteristics of defendants does not authorize a court to

abdicate its duty to impose a sentence ‘not greater than

necessary’ under § 3553(a).”. Davern, 970 F.2d at 1503

(dissent). Rather, as this Court held in Booker, sentencing

courts must “consider ‘the nature and circumstances of the

offense and the history and characteristics of the

defendant.” 543 U.S. at 249 (quoting § 3553(a)(1)).

B. The Sentencing Commission Has Found That

The Guidelines Can Result In Sentences That

Do Not Effectively Serve The Goals Of

Section 3553(a)

The courts of appeals have ignored the Commission’s

own findings that in some respects the guidelines are flawed

and have not “worked as intended.” USSC Assessment

Report at xvi.

The Commission Has Reported Disparity At The Pre-

Sentencing Stages

The Commission has reported that “a variety of

evidence developed through the guidelines era suggests that

the mechanisms and procedures designed to control

disparity arising at presentencing stages are not all working

as intended,” USSC Assessment Report at xii, 82, and that

“significant evidence suggests that presentencing stages

introduce disparity in sentencing,” id. at xvi. Charging

decisions and the non-uniform standards for the preparation

of pre-sentencing reports foster and perpetuate disparities

between similarly situated offenders. /d. at 82-86.

Statutory enhancements are unevenly charged by

prosecutors in different districts across the country. /d. at

90. Regional disparities, which “may have even increased

among drug trafficking offenses” under the guidelines, id. at

94, are also caused by prosecutors’ decisions with respect to

substantial assistance motions, id., and by “irregular and

inconsistent policies and practices among the various

districts,” id. at 104.14 In addition, many pre-sentencing

decisions ‘“disproportionately disadvantage minority

offenders.” Jd. at 91. Not only have the guidelines

mechanisms designed to address these disparities failed to

work as intended, they work badly “in one direction,” id. at

92 (emphasis added), by authorizing enhanced sentences

14 Commentators have found that regional disparity has “more than

tripled after implementation of the Guidelines.” Albert W. Alschuler,

Disparity: The Normative and Empirical Failure of the Federal

Guidelines, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 85, 101 (2005).

even for uncharged or dismissed conduct, but by providing

no comparable mechanism to reduce sentences for conduct

that was inflated by charging decisions, id.

A chief goal of the remedy this Court adopted in Booker

was to minimize the impact of prosecutorial charging and

bargaining choice at sentencing. 543 U.S. 257 (rejecting the

dissenters’ remedy in part because it would vest

prosecutors with discretionary power that properly resides

with judges). Moreover, as Justices of this Court and lower

court judges have recognized, “[m]ost of the sentencing

discretion should be with the judge, not the prosecutors”

and “a transfer of sentencing discretion from a judge to an

Assistant U.S. Attorney, often not much older than the

defendant, is misguided.” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,

Speech at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting

(Aug. 9, 2003), available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

publicinfo/speeches/sp_08-09-03.html; see also Davern, 970

F.2d at 1508 (Merritt, C.J., dissenting) (stating that under

the mandatory guidelines, “(t]he prosecutors ... effectively

control both the charging and the sentencing system|] [aJnd

to an ever-increasing extent, the two are one and the

same”). Unfortunately, the Commission’s assessments have

revealed that, under rigid enforcement of the guidelines,

“discretionary decisions by law enforcement officers and

prosecutors at presentencing stages have greater influence

..., since later actors [that is, judges] have fewer

opportunities to ameliorate any effect of disparate

treatment prior to sentencing.” USSC Assessment Report

at 99. After Booker, however, the guidelines are only one of

seven factors for the judge to consider in fashioning a

sentence, and judges now have greater opportunity to

remedy disparate presentencing treatment through

reasoned decisions to move away from the guidelines’

recommendations in appropriate cases.

Problems With The Drug Guidelines

Drug offenses make up the largest portion of the federal

criminal docket, but “the guidelines’ Drug Quantity Tables[]

fail in some cases to reflect the relative harmfulness of

different drugs.” USSC Assessment Report at vii. The

guidelines’ quantity-based approach and relevant conduct

rules have “had the effect of increasing prison terms far

above what had been typical in past practice, and in many

cases above the level required by the literal terms of the

mandatory minimum statutes.” Jd. at 49. These tables, as a

result, greatly elevate the importance of quantity over other

offense characteristics. Jd. at 50. As the Commission has

found, quantity can be “a particularly poor proxy for the

culpability of low-level offenders, who may have contact

with significant amounts of drugs, but who do not share in

the profits or decision-making.” Jd. at 52. The

Commission’s findings point out that rigid adherence to all

of the drug trafficking guidelines can and will result in

sentences that are greater than necessary to comply with

the purposes of sentencing set forth by Congress. !5

Problems With The Career Offender Guideline

The Commission has also found that the career offender

guideline has a disproportionate impact on low-level and

minority drug offenders without serving any justifiable

purpose. The Commission’s evidence shows that

“recidivism rates of drug trafficking offenders sentenced

under the career offender guideline based on prior drug

convictions ... are much lower than [for] other offenders

who are assigned to criminal history category VI.” USSC

Assessment Report at 134. In fact, these offenders’

recidivism rates are more similar to those of offenders in

lower criminal history categories “in which they would be

placed under normal criminal history scoring rules” absent

the career offender guideline. Jd. at 134. The Commission

has concluded that “[t]he career offender guideline ... makes

the criminal history category a less perfect measure of

15 Although some of these problems result from the statutory

mandatory minimum, the guidelines themselves often dictate the actual

sentence, significantly increasing average sentence length by “{aJbout 25

percent, or eighteen months” above the mandatory minimums. /d. at 54

(Commission statistic for offenders sentenced in 2001).

recidivism than it would be without the inclusion of

offenders qualifying only because of prior drug offenses.”

Id. (emphasis in original).

Other Sources Of Unwarranted Guidelines Disparity

The guidelines have also increased _ sentencing

disparities based on race, USSC Assessment Report at 115,

and “have a greater adverse impact on Black offenders than

did the factors taken into account by judges in the

discretionary system in place immediately prior to

guidelines implementation.” Jd. at 137.16 The Commission

also reports that “unexplained differences in the sentencing

of women compared to men are greater than any

unexplained differences in the sentencing of different racial

and ethnic groups.” Jd. at 118. The Commission’s empirical

work indicates that a nine-month gender disparity in the

average sentence imposed before the guidelines has been

replaced by a 23-month gender disparity in the average

sentence imposed during the guidelines regime. Jd. at 127-

28 & fig. 4.9.

All of these findings have led the Commission to

conclude that “some of the gap may result from sentencing

rules that have a disproportionate impact on a particular

offender group but that serve no clear sentencing purpose.”

Id. at 131 (emphasis added). The courts of appeals’

assumption that “disparities are at their ebb when the

Guidelines are followed,” United States v. Boscarino, 437

F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2006), is thus contradicted by the

Commission’s own empirical evidence and statements.

aOR

In sum, the Sentencing Commission, after

comprehensive study and in-depth analysis of actual

sentencing data, has concluded that “[aJttention might

fruitfully be turned to asking whether [certain guideline]

policies are necessary to achieve any legitimate purpose of

16 See also Alschuler, Disparity, at 103; Gerald W. Heaney, The

Reality of Guidelines Sentencing: No End to Disparity, 28 Am. Crim. L.

Rev. 161 (1991).

sentencing,’ USSC Assessment Report at 135, and “the

reformed sentencing system has fallen short of th{e] ideal in

several respects,” id. at 143-44, by failing to fully achieve

“the goals of sentence reform,” id. at 144. The Commission’s

compelling evidence shows that many of the effects of the

guidelines are neither deliberate nor in furtherance of any

legitimate sentencing purpose, and that these flaws have led

to sentences that are greater than necessary to achieve the

goals of sentencing, thus contravening the parsimony

provision. As a result, sentences under the guidelines as

well as rates of imprisonment have increased dramatically

from pre-guidelines levels. Jd. at vi.!17 These facts

undermine the basis for the courts of appeals’ ill-conceived

presumption and slavish adherence to the suggested

sentencing ranges.

IV. A DISTRICT COURT MUST STATE ON THE

RECORD ITS REASONS FOR THE SENTENCE

IMPOSED

Although a detailed discussion of the third question

presented is beyond the scope of this brief, NYCDL does

believe that in order for the post-Booker sentencing system

to operate in a fair, just, and individualized manner, and to

allow for meaningful appellate reasonableness review,

district courts must state, on the record, the reasons for the

sentence imposed. Prior to the guidelines, “{j]udges were

not required to explain the reasons for their sentences, and

the sentences themselves were largely immune from

appeal.” USSC Assessment Report at xviii. The

Sentencing Reform Act and the guidelines were designed to

inject transparency into the sentencing system. As the

Commission has noted, “appellate courts cannot perform

their assigned functions without the cooperation of other

participants in the system. Appellate review depends on

17 “Between November 1987 and 1992, the average prison terms

served by federal felons more than doubled.” USSC Assessment Report

at vi; see also id. (“(FJederal offenders sentenced in 2002 will spend

almost twice as long in prison as did offenders sentenced in 1984.”).

clear fact findings and statements of reasons by the

sentencing courts to provide a sufficient record for review.”

Id. at 35; see also 18 U.S.C. §3553(c); United States v.

Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005) (Posner, J.)

(“[W]henever a district judge is required to make a

discretionary ruling that is subject to appellate review, we

have to satisfy ourselves, before we can conclude that the

judge did not abuse his discretion, that he exercised his

discretion, that is, that he considered the factors relevant to

that exercise. A rote statement that the judge considered

all relevant factors will not always suffice.”). The absence of

a requirement that district courts explain the reasons for

the sentence imposed (like the presumption) increases the

incentives for a “busy judge to impose the guidelines

sentence and be done with it, without wading into the vague

and prolix statutory factors.” Cunningham, 429 F.3d at 679.

This risk “cannot be ignored.” Jd.

CONCLUSION

A proper interpretation of Section 3553(a) and an

appreciation of the limitations of the guidelines is necessary

for courts to exercise reasoned judgment when “impos[ing]

sentences sufficient, but not greater than necessary to

comply with the purposes of paragraph (2).” “Although the

guidelines were legally complex ... the bottom-line

judgments were largely mechanical once the offense level

and the criminal history numbers were calculated. ... But

now the bottom-line judgments are not mechanical. They

must now be more nuanced judgments that reflect both the

guidelines analysis and the larger context of the sentencing

factors and purposes identified in section 3553.” Jimenez-

Beltre, 440 F.3d at 528 (Lipez, J., dissenting). The nuanced

approach mandated by Section 3553(a) “requires courts of

appeals to evaluate each sentence individually for

reasonableness.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 312 (Scalia, J.,

dissenting in part). Indeed, as this Court acknowledged in

its remedial opinion, because of the individualized review

required for each defendant, reasonableness review perhaps

may not provide the same degree of national uniformity for

groups of offenders that Congress originally sought to

secure. Id. at 263 (“We cannot and do not claim that use of a

‘reasonableness’ standard will provide the uniformity that

Congress originally sought to secure.”). If courts comply

with the text of Section 3553(a), however, sentencing

outcomes will be more reasoned and more consistent than

those produced by rigid, unthinking adherence to the

guidelines.

There is neither room in the text nor any basis for a

presumption that within-guidelines sentences are

reasonable applications of Section 3553(a) in light of the

Commission’s findings. The picture of appellate review that

has emerged since Booker, as reflected in the NYCDL data,

suggests that the courts of appeals are operating in a

strongly non-parsimonious fashion. This sends a powerfully

discouraging—if not flatly prohibitive—message about the

exercise of discretion to district courts. This message has

precisely the opposite effect that Booker contemplated.

Guidelines sentences should not be presumed

reasonable. Instead, “[{i]t has been uniform and constant in

the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to

consider every convicted person as an individual and every

case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes

mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment

to ensue.” Koon, 518 U.S. at 113. Section 3553(a) requires

nothing less.

DOUGLAS A. BERMAN

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW

55 WEST 12TH AVENUE

COLUMBUS, OH 43210

JONATHAN BACH

PAUL H. SCHWARTZ

ELLIOT F. KAYE

D. SEAN NATION

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH

LLP

THE GRACE BUILDING

1114 AVENUE OF THE

AMERICAS

NEW YORK, NY 10036

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO

Counsel of Record

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

885 THIRD AVENUE

SUITE 1000

NEW YORK, NY 10022

(212) 906-1200

NATHAN H. SELTZER

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

555 11TH STREET, N.W.

SUITE 1000

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

APPENDIX

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Nearly two years ago, this Court held in United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that requiring judges to

impose sentences pursuant to the then-mandatory

sentencing guidelines was unconstitutional. To solve this

problem, the Court excised the provision making the

guidelines mandatory, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b); deemed the

guidelines “effectively advisory”; directed district judges to

make sentencing decisions based upon all the factors in

Section 3553(a); and instructed the courts of appeals to

review sentences for “unreasonableness.”

When Booker was decided, “no one kn{ew] ... how

advisory Guidelines and ‘unreasonableness’ review w[ould]

function in practice.” 543 U.S. at 311 (Scalia, J., dissenting

in part). Now, however, a body of data revealing how courts

of appeals have applied Booker’s standard has emerged.

Amicus curiae New York Council of Defense Lawyers has

analyzed this information, conducting a survey of cases from

January 1, 2006 through November 16, 2006, in which the

courts of appeals engaged in reasonableness review. !

The survey was conducted using Westlaw. Two date-

restricted searches were used. The first, broader search,

was designed to capture all cases that cited this Court’s

decision in Booker. The terms used were: Booker &

Reasonab! Unreasonab!. This search returned

approximately 2,800 cases. The second search was crafted

to capture those cases (mostly unpublished dispositions) in

which the courts of appeals applied unreasonableness

review, but did not cite Booker. The terms used were:

Sentenc! /3 Guideline / 20 Reasonab! Unreasonab! (#Not /3

Reasonab!) & Da (Aft 12/31/2005) % Booker. This search

yielded approximately 250 cases.

1 The starting date was chosen to avoid the need to filter out the large

number of early post-Booker decisions that did not involve review for

reasonableness, but instead addressed issues such as whether a pre-

Booker sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing in

light of Booker.

Counsel for the NYCDL reviewed the cases and

entered relevant information into a database. The

categories of information compiled included: (1) case name

and citation; (2) type of crime;2(3) advisory guideline range;

(4) sentence;? (5) whether the sentence was within, above, or

below the advisory range; (6) whether it was the

government or the defendant that appealed; (7) whether the

sentence was affirmed or reversed; (8) whether the

government or the defendant prevailed in the appeal; and

(9) if the sentence was vacated, whether the basis was

procedural or substantive.

Counsel excluded from the database all cases that

included the search terms but did not actually engage in

reasonableness review. For example, cases involving

appellate review of pre-Booker sentences for plain error

remands were not included. Likewise, cases in which the

court of appeals remanded solely because the advisory

guideline range was not calculated properly were excluded.

At the conclusion of the review, NYCDL’s database

included 1,515 cases. The database is included in this

appendix for the Court’s review.

The results of NYCDL’s analysis of the 1,515 cases in

the database are briefly summarized below.

e 154 cases involved sentences above the guidelines

that were appealed by the defendants;

e Nearly all of these above-guidelines sentences were

affirmed; only 7 were vacated;

e 60 of 71 below-guidelines sentences appealed by the

Government were vacated as unreasonable;

e There were also 138 below-guidelines sentences

appealed by defendants, and zero were found to be

2 Crimes were grouped as follows: D = Drugs; 1 - Immigration; T =

Theft/F raud offenses; F = Firearms; 8S = Sex crimes; and O = Other.

3 The sentence refers to the number of months of imprisonment reflected

in the court of appeals’ opinion exclusive of any terms of supervised

release, home confinement, fines, or other sentencing terms.

unreasonable;

e Of the remaining 1,152 within-guidelines sentences

appealed by defendants, 16 sentences were vacated;

e 15 of the reversals were for procedural reasons,

almost uniformly that the district court failed to

articulate its reasons for the sentence; and

e Only 1 within-guidelines sentence was found to be

substantively unreasonable.

NYCDL then broke down these findings by circuit,

according to whether the circuit has explicitly held that a

sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory-

guidelines range is presumed to be reasonable. The Fourth,

Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits have

explicitly adopted this presumption of reasonableness. In

these circuits:

e 93 were appeals by the defendant of an above-

guidelines sentence;

e 88 of these sentences were affirmed; only 5 were

vacated;

e There were 51 below-guidelines sentences that were

appealed by the Government;

e Nearly all of these sentences (47) were vacated; and

e Of the remaining 693 within-guidelines sentences

appealed by the defendants, only 7 were vacated.

In circuits that have not explicitly adopted a

presumption of reasonableness—the First, Second, Third,

Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits—the findings are as follows:

e 61 above-guidelines sentences were appealed by the

defendants;

e Virtually all of these sentences were affirmed; only 2

were vacated;

e 20 below-guidelines sentences were appealed by the

government and 13 were vacated; and

e Of the remaining 459 within-guidelines sentences

appealed by the defendants, 9 were vacated.

Mr. Rita’s case was appealed from the Fourth Circuit.

In that circuit, there were:

e 201 within-guidelines sentences appealed by the

defendants;

e All 201 of these sentences were found to be

reasonable;

e There were 10 appeals by defendants of above-

guidelines sentences;

e Only 1 sentence was vacated;

e The government appealed 9 below-guidelines

sentences; and

e All 9 of these below-guidelines sentences were found

to be unreasonable.

Mr. Claiborne’s case was appealed from the Eighth

Circuit. The data from that circuit show the following:

e There were 118 within-guidelines sentences

appealed by the defendants;

e Only 2 of these sentences were vacated;

e 1 reversal was based on an inadequate explanation

by the district court, and the other remains the only

case in which a circuit court has found a within-

guidelines sentences to be _ substantively

unreasonable;

e There were 22 appeals by defendants of above-

guidelines sentences;

e Nearly all of these sentences were affirmed; only 1

was vacated;

e The government appealed 28 below-guidelines

sentences;

e Nearly all of these sentences were reversed; 27 of

these below-guidelines sentences were found to be

unreasonable; and

e In United States v. Burns, 488 F.3d 826 (8th Cir.

2006), a panel of the Eighth Circuit, affirmed a

below-guidelines sentence, notwithstanding the

government’s appeal. The full Eighth Circuit has

since vacated the panel decision and reheard the case

en banc. See 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12239 (8th Cir.

May 18, 2006).

RESULTS FOR CIRCUITS THAT HAVE EXPLICITLY ADOPTED A PRESUMPTION

OF REASONABLENESS FOR WITHIN-GUIDELINES SENTENCES

Cir. Above-guidelines sentences Within-guidelines sentences | Below-guidelines

_ appealed by defendants and appealed by defendants and sentences appealed by

vacated vacated the government and

vacated

4 1/10 0/201 9/9

5 1/28 0/86 5/5

6 2/17 1/91 1/2

7 0/8 1/86 4/6

8 1/22 2/118 27/28

10 0/8 3/108 1/1

DC 0 0/3 0/0

Total | 5/93 7/693 47/51

RESULTS FOR CIRCUITS THAT HAVE NOT EXPLICITLY ADOPTED A

PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS FOR WITHIN-GUIDELINES SENTENCES

Cir. Above-guidelines sentences | Within-guidelines sentences Below-guidelines sentences

appealed by defendants and | appealed by defendants and appealed by the

vacated vacated government and vacated

1 1/3 0/30 4/4

2 0/6 1/60 2/3

3 | 0/10 1/71 1/1

) | 1/19 6/107 1/3

11 _| 0/28 1/191 5/9 a

Total | 2/61 9/459 13/20

FIRST CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Abad-Reyes, 187

Fed. Appx. 6 I 1-7 24 A D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Scherrer, 444 F.3d °

91 (1st Cir. 2006) ' es - A » A G

US. v. Zapete-Garcia,

447 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.2006)| 9° | % ” A i Bcd Dnt .

U.S. v. Meran, 463 F.3d

47 (1st Cir. 2006) D 108-135 75 B D A G

U.S. v. Griffin, 187 Fed. ego

Appx. 13 (1st Cir. 2006) . =o lS . ° A .

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range Sentencel Below | Deft | Affd ft | Subst

U.S. v. McGuire, 185 Fed. ;

Appx. 15 (1st Cir. 2006) D |u| we 5 » A G

U.S. v. Caraballo, 447

F.3d 26 (Ist Cir. 2006) > |e = . o>} 4;S

U.S. v. Thurston, 456 63-78

F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2006) T (60 stat 3 B G R G S

max)

US. v. Smith, 445 F.3d 1

(Ist Cir. 2006) D 100-125 46 B G R G S

| U.S. v. Pho, 483 F.3d 53 ‘

(ist Cir, 2006) D | 87-108 | 64 B G R G S

U.S. v. Lewis, 433 F.3d 53 .

(ist Cir. 2006) D 235-293 188 B G R G S

U.S. v. Fanfan, 2006 WL

3217712 (1st Cir. 2006) D 210 W D A G

2555913 (1st Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Hernandez, 2006 180

WL 3041972 F (minim 188 W D A G

(1st Cir. 2006) um)

USS. v. Jahagirdar, 2006

WL 2988661 O 87 W D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

US. v. Anziani, 2006 WL

2924936 (1st Cir. 2006) “ as bad ° a .

U.S. v. Santos-Martinez,

2006 WL 2709460 I 16 W D A G

(ist Cir, 2006)

U.S. v. Jones, 2006 WL

2673296 (1st Cir. 2006) > |= 7,9; 4 js

U.S. v. Rodriguez,2006

WL2673310(1st Cir. 2006) ° - aed ° “ .

US. v. Segalla, 2006 WL F 120 Ww D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Quirindongo-

Martinez, 2006 WL O 27-33 33 W D A G

2439968 (1st Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Peralta, 457 F.3d

"169 (Ist Cir. 2006) » ss bed >} 4; °&

U.S. v. Burks, 2006 WL

2130106 (Ist Cir. 2006) >, =i = bed >, 4} &

U.S. v. Morales-

Rodriguez, 2006 WL T 121 Ww D A G

2034694 (ist Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Trinidad-

Rodriguez, 2006 WL I 41-51 41 Ww D A G

3233767 (ist Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Vazquez-Mieses,

2006 WL 2742550 I 46-57 46 W D A G

(Ist Cir. 2006)

BOI

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Washington, 187

Fed. Appx. 3 D 168-210 168 W D A G

(ist Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Feliz, 453 F.3d 33

(1st Cir, 2006) D 97-121 97 W D A G

U.S. v. Wilson, 185 Fed.

Appx. 6 (Ist Cir. 2006) D 330 bed » A G

U.S. v. Brown, 450 F.3d °

76 (1st Cir, 2006) ; |; = bid bed >| 4] &

U.S. v. Alvarez-Enciso,

181 Fed. Appx. 8 I 24-30 24 Ww D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Navedo-

Concepcion, 450 F.3d 54 D 121-151 151 W D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Soto-Cruz, 449

F.3d 258 (1st Cir. 2006) . erdieneds Wiis bad » A .

ell

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Castro-Polanco,

182 Fed. Appx. 1 I 46-57 46 W D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Dixon, 449 F.3d

194 (1st Cir. 2006) O 92-115 115 W D A G

U.S. v. Rivera, 448 F.3d

82 (1st Cir. 2006) D,F | 188-235 188 W D A G

U.S. v. Sagendorf, 445 9

F.3d 515 (1st Cir. 2006) ° reall “ bed » A c

U.S. v. Alli, 444 F.3d 34

(1st Cir. 2006) . ate a - ” sa °

U.S. v. Saez, 444 F.3d 15 ; ‘

(1st Cir, 2006) D 130-7 130 W D A G

U.S. v. Jiminez-Beltre,

440 F.3d 514 I 46-57 46 W D A G

(Ist Cir. 2006)

ra |

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Montero-Diaz, 173

Fed. Appx. 7 I 57-71 57 W D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Turbides-

Leonardo, --F .3d--, 2006

WL 3290937 D 48 W D A G

(1st Cir. 2006)

eel

SECOND CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Pereira, 2006 WL a

2925642 (2d Cir. 2006) ' baie = “ a “ “

U.S. v. Nurse, 2006 WL

2382919 (2d Cir. 2006) . sient ” . ° a .

U.S. v. Singletary, 458 oe

F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2006) a ellen - - ° a 2s

U.S. v. Fairclough, 439

F.3d 76 (2d Cir, 2006) , | seri, & A D|A G

U.S. v. Pettus, 2006 WL

328267 (2d Cir, 2006) o +s iS A D A G

U.S. v. Orlandez-Gamboa,

2006 WL 1668055 (2d Cir. D 325-405 480 A D A G

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Santiago, 2006

WL 31473583 (2d Cir. S 70-87 63 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Giovanelli, 464

F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2006) . |e. = ¥ a . .

U.S. v. Mejia, 461 F.3d

158 (2d Cir. 2006) I 46-57 37 B D A G

U.S. v. Ebbers, 458 F.3d 30

110 (2d Cir. 2006) F years | 25 years B D A G

to life

U.S. v. Kane, 452 F.3d ;

140 (2d Cir. 2006) . waned - 7 ° ” .

U.S. v. Florez, 447 F.3d 3 a

145 (2d Cir. 2006) D 262-327 210 B D A G

U.S. v. McFarlane, 2006

WL 2521649 (2d Cir. D 41 B D A G

Bgl

3026148 (2d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Earls, 2006 WL

3310814 (2d Cir. 2006) od = S >; A S

U.S. v. Jones, 460 F.3d

191 (2d Cir. 2006) D 30-37 15 B G A D

USS. v. Castillo, 460 F.3d

337 (2d Cir. 2006) D 135-168 87 B G R G S

U.S. v. Rattoballi, 452

| F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2006) 7, oe) & “ a °

U.S. v. Maflahi, 2006 WL Stat

2672085 (2d Cir. 2006) ° =e © on i @ | 4 j ©

US. v. Riley, 452 F.3d ; ; Stat "

160 (2d Cir. 2006) F 188-235 120 max D A G

U.S. v. Stinson, 2006 WL .

2711988 (2d Cir. 2006) d - bed D A os

U.S. v. Morgan, 2006 WL , 74 Ww D A G

egl

1843520 (2d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Rivera, 2006 WL

2711988 (2d Cir. 2006) > |e) & bed >; 4;°&°

US. v. Santos, 2006 WL

2564390 (2d Cir. 2006) D ” bed >»; 4

U.S. v. Velasquez, 2006

WL 2990234 (2d Cir. I 41-51 41 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Park, 461 F.3d 245

(od Cir. 2006) D 151 w D A G

U.S. v. Bliss, 2006 WL

1975433 (2d Cir. 2006) ? opm; * af a °

U.S. v. Ramirez, 454 F.3d

380 (2d Cir. 2006) D 151-188 151 W D A G

U.S. v. Ortega, 2006 WL " - - " a ,

BLT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Casteneda, 2006

WL 1737827 (2d Cir. D W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Bello-Mosqueda,

2006 WL 1766703 (2d Cir. if 46-57 46 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Delarosa, 2006 .

WL 1763878 (2d Cir.2006) | = w D A w

U.S. v. Jimenez, 451 F.3d

97 (2d Cir. 2006) D 57-71 60 W D A G

U.S. v. Macias, 2006 WL

1594008 (2d Cir. 2006) » 106 bed >| 4 G

US. v. Elliot, 2006 WL ‘

1582689 (2d Cir. 2006) “ bed >; 4;

U.S. v. Forquet, 2006 WL D 151 W D A G

1582690 (2d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Wu, 2006 WL

1423474 (2d Cir. 2006) o ° bed »}] 4] °&

U.S. v. Villanova, 2006

WL 1423482 (2d Cir. I 77 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Tavera, 2006 WL

1426824 (2d Cir. 2006) D a Ww >»; 4] &

USS. v. Martinez, 2006

WL 1359946 (2d Cir. D 135 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Caballero-Espinal,

2006 WL 1070941 (2d Cir. I 46 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Matrulli, 2006 WL es

1049108 (24 Cir, 2006) . |e | te ee Te

U.S. v. McDaniel, 2006 F 72 D A G

WL 917208 (2d Cir. 2006)

e61

482557 (2d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Nicholas, 2006 WL

897860 (2d Cir. 2006) T ed bed D A G

U.S. v. Fernandez, 443

F.3d 19 (2d Cir, 2006) D> | sis) i al >; 4;

US. v. Tejada-Hilliano,

2006 WL 897767 (2d Cir. I 41-51 41 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Victoria, 2006 WL

760136 (2d Cir. 2006) D 1S bad D A G

USS. v. Folkes, 2006 WL

755955 (2d Cir. 2006) » 5S bed D A G

U.S. v. Beckett, 2006 WL

544487 (2d Cir. 2006) d on ” 7} * i];

U.S. v. Smith, 2006 WL os

522082 (2d Cir. 2006) : nd sed ° - .

U.S. v. Perez, 2006 WL D 999 W D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

USS. v. Harris, 2006 WL

374205 (2d Cir. 2006) t “ bed >»; 4i]°8&

U.S. v. Munroe, 2006 WL

354640 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 |e] & ” 7; 4; Ss

U.S. v. Collins, 2006 WL

231666 (2d Cir, 2006) ” wel sal » | 4 G

U.S. v. Claudillo-

Marquez, 2006 WL I 77 W D A G

224182 (2d Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Emence, 2006 WL

189999 (2d Cir. 2006) ow. bed >»; 4] °&

U.S. v. Nash, 2006 WL

3147563 (2d Cir. 2006) » 16 bad 7; 8;

U.S. v. Wilson, 2006 WL

3026162 (2d Cir. 2006) » mate bed >} 4} &

U.S. v. Khan, 2006 WL I Ww D A G

268668 (2d. Cir. 2006)

BIZ

616314 (2d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Marshall, 2006

WL 1788492 (2d Cir. I 60 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Sow, 2006 WL

1318798 (2d Cir. 2006) ° |e) & ie Bade En Pin.

USS. v. Celaya-Romo,

2006 WL 1236329 (2d Cir. D 168 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Castro, 2006 WL

958290 (2d Cir. 2006) D 135-168 135 W D A G

US. v. Agnew, 2006 WL

707482 (2d Cir, 2006) ' - eA ade id >.

USS. v. Vargas, 2006 WL

700928 (2d Cir. 2006) Set ae vd ” - .

US. v. Rajotte, 2006 WL D 135 Ww D A G

_ 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Navarro, 2006 WL .

3263834 (2d Cir. 2006) T 57-71 57 W D A G

U.S. v. Dorney, 2006 WL

2919021 (2d Cir. 2006) / 89 bed D{|A|&G

US. v. Ellis, 2006 WL

2990202 (2d Cir, 2006) . « bed >; 4; @

U.S. v. Wusebio, 2006 WL

2973010 (2d Cir. 2006) : bed D}|A | G

U.S. v. Watson, 2006 WL

| 266527 (2d Cir. 2006) F,D 130 bed >| A G

U.S. v. Gamble, 2006 WL

3253087 (2d Cir. 2006) D 216 bed » | A G

U.S. v. Fernandez, 2006

WL 3298426 (2d Cir. I 46 W D A G

BES

| 542 (2d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Ventura-Mejia,

2006 WL 3308205 (2d Cir. I W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Drayton, 2006 WL

3307754 (2d Cir. 2006) I 57-71 71 W D A G

U.S. v. Meija, 2006 WL

3326757 (2d Cir. 2006) a = 7 >} 4}

US. v. Capozzi, 2006 WL

3307631 (2d Cir. 2006) . ” bad ° A “

U.S. v. Toohey, 448 F.3d O 15-21 15 Ww D R D p

THIRD CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Brown, 2006 WL T 70-87 90 A D A G

3090333 (3d Cir. 2006)

US. v. King, 2006 WL

2189683 (3d Cir. 2006) 5 | oe; @ A 7} 2;

U.S. v. Powell, 2006 WL

2135049 (3d Cir. 2006) . jo). = . it idl Ts

U.S. v. King, 454 F.3d 187 ;

(3d Cir. 2006) T 30-37 72 A D A G

U.S. v. Schweitzer, 454

F.3d 197 (3d Cir.2006). | 7 | 4697 | & A >; 4/]°8

U.S. v. Sparks, 184 Fed.

Appx. 185 (3d Cir. 2006) ad — - ” - “ .

U.S. v. Rose, 176 Fed. .

| Appx. 295 (3d Cir. 2006) ° ;| oe | ® A o>; 4} °°

Bc?

| Appx. 258 (3d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Govy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Burke, 176 Fed.

Appx. 304 (3d Cir. 2006) ° nih vi . ” “ .

U.S. v. Robinson, 174

Fed. Appx. 72 (3d Cir. O 24-30 60 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Cropper, 168 Fed. . , .

Appx. 508 (3d Cir. 2006) , |= en “ ” " .

Nabried v. U.S., 2006 WL - "

2474026 (3d Cir. 2006) 2 eo as ” “ 7

U.S. v. Amos, 2006 WL om

2384927 (3d Cir. 2006) D 188-235 140 B D A G

US. v. Flores, 454 F.3d ,

149 (3d Cir. 2006) T 70-87 32 B D A G

U.S. v. Gordon, 185 Fed.

Appx. 192 (3d Cir. 2006) . eo = " a ” '

U.S. v. Brantley, 184 Fed. T 151-188 144 B D A G

B9G

a Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Baskerville, 181

Fed. Appx. 199 (3d Cir. O 130-? 100 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Seaton, 178 Fed.

Appx. 172 (3d Cir, 2006) D | s2se7| «200 5 >»; 4] &

U.S. v. Tyson, 176 Fed.

Appx. 255 (3d Cir. 2006) ° saniened ans . ° . .

U.S. v. Cepeda, 181 Fed.

Appx. 177 (3d Cir. 2006) ad vaste - ° a . 7

U.S. v. Walker, 172 Fed.

| Appx. 460 (3d Cir. 2006) ° - . » A “

USS. v. Sargeant, 171

Fed. Appx. 954 (3d Cir. F 210-262 120 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Giaguinto, 441 . ,

F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006) i=) = 7 mie; %

BLS

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Ricciotti, 170 Fed.

’ ?

Appx. 800 (3d Cir.2006) | D2 | 3 - . "is;

U.S. v. Nunez, 173 Fed.

Appx. 128 (3d Cir. 2006) D 235-293 216 B D A G

U.S. v. Jackson, 169 Fed.

Appx. 120 (3d Cir. 2006) O | 16 . . 7; 4;°s

U.S. v. Wilson, 2006 WL

| 3090125 (3d Cir. 2006) . i) = A Te ul Wes

U.S. v. Millard, 184 Fed. -.

"Appx. 226 (3d Cir,2006) | ? | 191-188] 130 le Cie Cao Che

U.S. v. Miles, 184 Fed.

Appx. 222 (ad Cir. 2006) D | 100-120} 87 B D A G

U.S. v. Hyung Pil Baek,

181 Fed. Appx. 165 (3d T 70-87 24 B G R G S

3247919 (3d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range Sentence] Below Deft | Affd ft | Subst

U.S. v. Benjamin, 2006

WL 3227881 (3d Cir. T 39 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hertzog, 186 Fed.

Appx. 314 (3d Cir. 2006) . ” 7 ° a .

U.S. v. Armstead, 185

Fed. Appx. 211 (3d Cir. D 120 WwW D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Barron, 181 Fed.

Appx. 269 (3d Cir, 2006) D 151-188 151 W D A G

USS. v. Skiba, 178 Fed. ‘

Appx. 159 (3d Cir. 2006) 0 — bed o A “

U.S. v. Thomas, 174 Fed.

Appx. 1 (3d Cir, 2006) BE Prices Ps: bad >; 4/;8

U.S. v. Jackson, 2006 WL 0 87-46 37 Ww D A G

| 3057558 (3d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Charles, ---F.3d---,

2006 WL 3231396 (3d Cir. O 37-46 46 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Cooley, 2006 WL Ty

3227764 (3d Cir. 2006) D ?-Life Life W D A G

U.S. v. Dees, ---F.3d---,

2006 WL 3209989 (3d Cir. T 24-72 72 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Paz, 2006 WL

3201104 (3d Cir. 2006) J bed » A G

U.S. v. Fowers, 2006 WL -

3147204 (3d Cir. 2006) . _— ™ a “ °

U.S. v. Gavin, 2006 WL

’ > Or ‘

3079013 (3d Cir, 2006) 7 oi = vd >); 4); S&S

US. v. Lyons, 2006 WL D 70-87 7 | w D A C

BOS

2726500 (3d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Tirado, 2006 WL

3024701 (3d Cir. 2006) , |= CU! bed >} 4] °&

US. v. Rodriguez-

Sanchez, 2006 WL D ?-Life 250 W D A G

2882078 (3d Cir. 2006)

US. v. Nesgoda, 2006

WL 2871273 (3d Cir. O 120 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Neary, 2006 WL

2871275 (3d Cir. 2006) T 151-188 170 W D A G

US. v. Henry, 2006 WL

2849651 (3d Cir. 2006) a, =a & bad 7; 4 ;Ss

U.S. v. Samuelsen, 2006

WL 2826730 (3d Cir. T 37-51 37 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Grasso, 2006 WL T 107 W D A G

BIs

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Outram, 2006 WL

2673288 (3d Cir. 2006) : " sad o>; 4; 8

U.S. v. Parker, 462 F.3d 349 (11

273 (3d Cir. 2006) D 360- credit Ww D A G

Life for time

served)

U.S. v. Hodge, 2006 WL

2400946 (3d Cir. 2006) D 151-188 166 W D A G

U.S. v. Muhammad, 2006

WL 2189798 (3d Cir. F 110-137 120 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Burtula, 2006 WL ; ;

2167586 (3d Cir. 2006) ¥ east nd a “ .

U.S. v. Purdie, 2006 WL 37-46 37 W D A CG

2092446 (3d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Melntyre, 186 |

Fed. Appx. 328 (3d Cir. T 57-71 63 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Veneziale, 2006

WL 2076156 (3d Cir. O 108-135 120 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Felix, 2006 WL

2051677 (3d Cir. 2006) » oe w = 2 ee

U.S. v. Severino, 454 F.3d ,

206 (3d Cir. 2006) D 63-78 63 W D A G

U.S. v. Mornan, 186 Fed.

‘enemas | + |e) we] eee

USS. v. Sanders, 185 Fed.

Appx. 176 (3d Cir. 2006) | | iss bod o>; 4]{&

U.S. v. Taylor, 184 Fed. .

Appx. 146 (3d Cir. 2006) v 836 bad D A “

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Newman, 186 Fed.

Appx. 264 (3d Cir. 2006) S55-E08 =e bed » A G

U.S. v. Marshall, 186 Fed.

Appx. 246 (3d Cir.2006) | D | 151-188) 168 A Tele Pe iter

U.S. v. Shusterman, 184

Fed. Appx. 224 (3d Cir. T 51-63 51 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Jimenez-Calderon,

183 Fed. Appx. 274 (3d S 210 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Long, 183 Fed.

Appx. 182 (3d Cir. 2006) t atts se bed » A G

U.S. v. Briscoe-Bey, 182

Fed. Appx. 68 (3d Cir. D 151-188 188 W D A G

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Bonilla Velasquez,

182 Fed. Appx. 120 (3d I 77-96 85 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Clark, 182 Fed.

Appx. 117(3dCir.2006) | - | | % bad AM Pl Phe

US. v. Festus, 181 Fed.

Appx. 147 (3d Cir. 2006) ° -” sal de ae Tite

U.S. v. Kosek, 183 Fed.

Appx. 174 (3d Cir.2006e) | * | 87 | 2% ie Wack Dik hn:

US. v. Eiswerth, 181

Fed. Appx. 175 (3d Cir. D 46-57 46 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Efigenio, 183 Fed.

Appx. 165 (3d Cir. 2006) : 41-00 “ w D A G

U.S. v. Jarrett, 181 Fed. Fr 57-71 57 Ww D A G

Appx. 233 (3d Cir. 2006)

bce

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below ft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Able, 182 Fed.

Appx. 77 (3d Cir. 2006) 7 | Beel =U bed D | A G

U.S. v. Thomas, 181 Fed.

Appx. 188 (3d Cir, 2006) > |e « bed >; 4] &

U.S. v. Braun, 180 Fed.

Appx. 351 (3d Cir. 2006) rT | ee «CB bed D A G

U.S. v. Rene, 180 Fed.

Appx. 339 (3d Cir. 2006) rj, oo; bed >|] A G

U.S. v. Carroll, 179 Fed.

Appx. 128 (3d Cir. 2006) S 140-175 175 W D A G

US. v. Stewart, 179 Fed. 360-

Appx. 814 (3d Cir. 2006) D | uit | w >; A] &

U.S. v. Kossak, 178 Fed.

Appx. 183 (3d Cir. 2006) ; iwi & bed D;A4 | &

U.S. v. Pena, 177 Fed. D 57-71 60 W D A G

Appx. 257 (3d Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev'd | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence] Below ft | Affd t | Subst

USS. v. Scott, 178 Fed.

Appx. 140 (3d Cir, 2006) D 108-135 108 W D A G

USS. v. Gray, 176 Fed.

Appx. 315 (3d Cir. 2006) ° vetiems " bad » A °

U.S. v. Rackley, 175 Fed.

Appx. 564 (3d Cir.200e) | © | @97 | 9% bad al Geode has

U.S. v. McNeal, 175 Fed.

Appx. 546 (3d Cir. 2006) d oA bad D A G

U.S. v. Reed, 173 Fed.

Appx. 184 (3d Cir. 2006) y |es;| w-7; 2, ATS

U.S. v. Gomez-Fonseca,

171 Fed. Appx. 957 (3d I 77-96 77 Ww D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Boyd, 173 Fed.

Appx. 139 (3d Cir. 2006) » mates ans bed D A e

U.S. v. Veshio, 174 Fed. T 151-188 170 W D A G

Appx. 63 (3d Cir. 2006)

BLE

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Dair, 174 Fed.

Appx. 68 (3d Cir. 2006) D |S! © bed D}|A4 | &

U.S. v. Weaver, 175 Fed.

Appx. 506 (3d Cir. 2006) 0 80-37 36 bad D A G

U.S. v. Reyes, 169 Fed.

Appx. 115 (3d Cir. 2006) ° mathans = bad » A S

_US. v. Knighton, 171

_ Fed. Appx. 939 (3d Cir. T 70-87 70 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Cooper, 437 F.3d

394 (3d Cir. 2006) D 84-105 105 W D A G

U.S. v. Riddle, 174 Fed.

Appx. 662 (3d Cir. 2006) . os “. nad D A G

U.S. v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 535

237 (3d Cir. 2006) . endeens = bad D R » J

U.S. v. Webb, 2006 WL .

2974124 (3d Cir. 2006) ’ 7} }4;°8

FOURTH CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Carpenter, 2006

WL 2986548 (4th Cir. F 15-21 30 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Robinson, 2006

WL 2794398 (4th Cir. O 8-14 24 A D A G

2006)

US. v. Smiley, 2006 WL

2347625 (4th Cir, 2006) ' {oe & - Gl Tiedt en

U.S. v. Smith, 2006 WL

2347524 (4th Cir, 2006) ° as AES ch Gd Bhs

USS. v. Crudup, 461 F.3d .

433 (4th Cir. 2006) ° whet ” “ ” “ °

U.S. v. Spain, 2006 WL

1627248 (4th Cir. 2006) ° “ “ ” " as

2591917 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Hall, 2006 WL

1307881 (4th Cir. 2006) 7 | oe » A o>; 4; 8

U.S. v. Betanzos-Fiores,

2006 WL 392068 (4th Cir. I 21-27 30 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ferguson, 2006 .

WL 786817 (4th Cir. 2006) | _? 1 A >; A] S&

U.S. v. Davenport, 445

F.3d 366 (4th Cir, 2006) 7 | eer] 6 A >; *® ji ® 5

U.S. v. Canady, 2006 WL ,

9686625 (4th Cir. 2006) » ais 5 >; 4] &

U.S. v. Canady, 2006 WL -

2688869 (4th Cir. 2006) 2 ae . » A S

US. v. Canady, 2006 WL

2620153 (4th Cir. 2006) oF a0 5 >»; 4]; °&

U.S. v. Marcum, 2006 WL T 63-78 60 R D A G

e0F

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Basurto, 2006 WL

2520317 (4th Cir. 2006) D 180 B dD} A G

U.S. v. Bonnie, 2006 WL

2492161 (4th Cir. 2006) D B D A G

US. v. McLean, 2006 WL

2140033 (4th Cir. 2006) ,

(defendant D. T 135-? 120 B D A G

Zimmerman)

US. v. Davis, 2006 WL

2076447 (4th Cir. 2006) D |20ce) 5 D A G

U.S. v. Guffey, 2006 WL .

1828012 (4th Cir. 2006) S | l2i-lbl) % B D A G

US. v. Katz, 2006 WL :

1636740 (4th Cir, 2006) [S| ®& B D A G

U.S. v. Wishon, 2006 WL ;

1443698 (4th Cir. 2006) F | 2t-180] = 100 B D A G

BIP

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Thompson, 2006

WL 1233245 (4th Cir. T 24-30 15 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Woods, 2006 WL '

538030 (4th Cir. 2006) o ved 5 AE a Pee

U.S. v. Santos, 2006 WL

476620 (4th Cir, 2006) J - . - 2 e |S

U.S. v. Hampton, 441

F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2006) J witli a 5 G R G 5

U.S. v. Curry, 461 F.3d

452 (4th Cir. 2006) . sien ” . ° ” ?

U.S. v. Perez-Pena, 453

F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2006) | ee le 5 .;*® is S

U.S. v. Kimbrough, 2006

WL 1233525 (4th Cir. D 168-210 120 B G R G S

2006)

BCP

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below t | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625

(4th Cir. 2006) D 78-97 60 B G R G S

U.S. v. Clark, 434 F.3d

684 (4th Cir. 2006) D 46-57 8 B G R G S

U.S. v. Williams, 2006

WL 3026266 (4th Cir. D 97-121 6 B G R D S

2006)

U.S. v. Khan, 461 F.3d

477 (4th Cir. 2006) O 97-121 52 B G R G S

U.S. v. Moreland, 437 ;

F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006) D 360-life 120 B G R G S

U.S. v. Shore, 2006 WL stat

241368 (4th Cir. 2006) A ented Gee ne ied Ee

U.S. v. McLean, 2006 WL

2140033 (4th Cir. 2006) 9 . stat .

(defendant P. T Ie! Ise max D A G

Zimmerman)

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

, of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

US. v. Williams, 444 F.3d stat

250 (4th Cir. 2006) T 11-06 oe max D A G

U.S. v. Deberry, 2006 WL stat

871281 (4th Cir. 2006) d = | oe | 7 | 4} S

USS. v. Dowtin, 2006 WL

655079 (4th Cir. 2006) J “ bed >; 47S

US. v. Esposito, 2006

WL 3327804 (4th Cir. T W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Owens, 2006 WL

3327588 (4th Cir. 2006) 2 es = bad ° A ° ?

U.S. v. Dumas, 2006 WL

| 3311504 (4th Cir. 2006) ° - bad as a °

U.S. v. Perez-Mendez,

2006 WL 3313359 (4th D 168 Ww D A G

: Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Def't d | Deft | Subst

US. v. Davis, 2006 WL

3267349 (4th Cir. 2006) D 16 w AP int Bes

U.S. v. Stanback, 2006

WL 3253931 (4th Cir. D 420 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Phillips, 2006 WL

3207969 (4th Cir. 2006) d ae bad D A G

U.S. v. Phelps, 2006 WL

3147514 (4th Cir. 2006) D,F | meee) bed » A G

USS. v. Lutz, 2006 WL

3077440 (4th Cir, 2006) S aa bed » A G

U.S. v. Wimbush, 2006

WL 3055494 (4th Cir. D 360-life 360 W D A G

2006) 2

U.S. v. Hill, 2006 WL

3069471 (4th Cir. 2006) » 18s bad D;A4A] &

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

USS. v. Shields, 2006 WL

3026305 (4th Cir. 2006) F 110-120 120 W D A G

U.S. v. Brown, 2006 WL

3025749 (4th Cir. 2006) 0, F se bed >| 4] &

U.S. v. Minter, 2006 WL

3018109 (4th Cir. 2006) D “ bed » A G

U.S. v. Brown, 2006 WL

3018104 (4th Cir. 2006) d sed a A ©

U.S. v. Barajas, 2006 WL ~

2974323 (4th Cir. 2006) » oA bed >; 4; ¢

U.S. v. Rutland, 2006 WL

2974333 (4th Cir. 2006) D S26-E06 = bed » A G

U.S. v. Naranjo, 2006 WL , .

2953366 (4th Cir. 2006) . wal & bed >; 4]; &

U.S. v. Plaismond, 2006

WL 2953400 (4th Cir. D 168-210 168 W D A G

_ 2006)

2817656 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Anthony, 2006

WL 2930145 (4th Cir. D 324 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Anthony, 2006

WL 2930145 (4th Cir. D 360 W D A G

2006) (defendant Scott)

US. v. Carter, 2006 WL

2930143 (4th Cir. 2006) d be bed » A °

USS. v. Lee, 2006 WL .

"2858975 (4th Cir. 2006) ME Dect We bad 7; 8) Ss

_U,S. v. Kafka-Banderas,

2006 WL, 2846458 (4th I 77 Ww D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Plumber, 2006 WL

2846453 (4th Cir. 2006) 7; |e! & >»; 4] 8

U.S. v. Haynes, 2006 WL D 188-235 188 W D A G

eLY

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Malloy, 2006 WL

2817657 (4th Cir. 2006) . on bed » A G

U.S. v. Luck, 2006 WL

2711929 (4th Cir. 2006) ° — bad 7; a4; Ss

U.S. v. Johnson, 2006 WL

2711976 (4th Cir. 2006) d 61 bed » | 4 G

U.S. v. Dominguez-

Villegas, 2006 WL D 151 Ww D A G

2668682 (4th Cir. 2006)

_US. v. Garcia-Arzate,

2006 WL 2640242 (4th D 156 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

US. v. Stroupe, 2006 WL

2620209 (4th Cir. 2006) bd wd sed ° “ .

U.S. v. Patterson, 2006

WL 2620174 (4th Cir. D 262 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Andaya-Penalosa,

2006 WL 2562322 (4th D life W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Connor, 2006 WL

2547960 (4th Cir. 2006) ° endian - ” a A S

U.S. v. Little, 2006 WL

2527670 (4th Cir, 2006) d % bed » | 4} &

U.S. v. Moss, 2006 WL

2520299 (4th Cir. 2006) » om w » | A G

U.S. v. Sanders, 2006 WL

| 2520308 (4th Cir. 2006) D ae bed » A G

US. v. Myrick, 2006 WL

2465326 (4th Cir. 2006) ,9 |= = bed » A G

U.S. v. Plata-Oceguera,

2006 WL 2460860 (4th | 54 W D A G

e6P

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Frost, 2006 WL

2433961 (4th Cir. 2006) D,F | 235-293 235 WwW D A G

U.S. v. Vasquez, 2006 WL

2460750 (4th Cir, 2006) 7, ll Md Ged Ms

U.S. v. Whitlock, 2006

WL 2433985 (4th Cir. O 7-13 13 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Epperson, 2006

WL 2457154 (4th Cir. F 33 W D A u

2006)

U.S. v. Pankey, 2006 WL

2457166 (4th Cir. 2006) af lies vid bad " m .

US. v. Craig, 2006 WL

2347648 (4th Cir. 2006) 2 =) = w |} P_ai Ss

U.S. v. Williams, 2006

WL 2347518 (4th Cir. D 78-97 97 WwW D A G

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev'd | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft d | Deft | Subst

USS. v. Scott, 2006 WL

2335547 (4th Cir. 2006) D | 188-235} — 188 W D|-A G

US. v. Baker, 2006 WL

2277730 (4th Cir. 2006) F | 110-120} 110 W D A G

"US. v. Battles, 2006 WL

2141222 (4th Cir. 2006) T | 121) 97 Ww D | A G

U.S. v. McLean, 2006 WL

2140033 (4th Cir. 2006) T | 235-293) 252 Ww D A G

US. v. Gibbs, 2006 WL

2142076 (4th Cir. 2006) T W D A G

U.S. v. Fuller, 2006 WL .

2092537 (4th Cir. 2006) T,F 84/60 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Noe, 2006 WL

2076444 (4th Cir. 2006) T | BM) 8 W D| A | G

US. v. Roussos, 2006 WL

| 2076453 (4th Cir. 2006) D 360 Ww D A G

BIS

2044850 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Oglesby, 2006 WL

2076453 (4th Cir. 2006) = bed >»; 4] &

U.S. v. McDonald, 2006

WL 2076451 (4th Cir. 235 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hayward, 2006

WL 2052073 (4th Cir. 38 W D A - G

2006)

U.S. v. King, 2006 WL

2044878 (4th Cir. 2006) en; ¢ bad >; 4/;°&6

US. v. Billingsley, 2006

WL 2044850 (4th Cir. 324 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Price, 2006 WL 262 w D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

U.S. v. Overstreet, 2006

WL 2010850 (4th Cir. F 63 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Shipman, 2006

WL 2010843 (4th Cir. D 360-life 360 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Dublin, 2006 WL ; ,

1956414 (4th Cir. 2006) D life life Ww D A G

US. v. Brooks, 2006 WL

1971628 (4th Cir. 2006) F id bed >»; A; &

US. v. Louis, 2006 WL

1971622 (4th Cir, 2006) D 108 w D A G

US. v. Hailey, 2006 WL

1920017 (4th Cir. 2006) F | 180-210) = 190 Ww D A G

USS. v. Statts, 2006 WL

1918956 (4th Cir. 2006) DF | SS) 8 w D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Daniels, 2006 WL

1888823 (4th Cir. 2006) yt 360 W D | A G

U.S. v. Dailey, 2006 WL

1888880 (4th Cir. 2006) D,F 78 W D A G

US. v. Discua, 2006 WL

1888828 (4th Cir. 2006) T | 185-168] = 151 W D A G

U.S. v. Shull, 2006 WL

1880194 (4th Cir. 2006) T | 1521 21 W D A G

U.S. v. Sehen, 2006 WL

1867372 (4th Cir. 2006) » 121 W D A G

U.S. v. Marrs, 2006 WL

1868493 (4th Cir. 2006) D 41 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Gordy, 2006 WL

1877212 (4th Cir. 2006) » 135 W D A G

U.S. v. Goodline, 2006

WL 1877214 (4th Cir. F 77-96 92 W D A G

2006)

By¢

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Thomas, 2006 WL

1817100 (4th Cir. 2006) > |= = bed Ah Ga Bes

U.S. v. Washington, 2006

WL 1819026 (4th Cir. F 100-125 100 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ollivierre, 2006

WL 1792739 (4th Cir. D 210-262 210 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Thomas, 2006 WL

1835942 (4th Cir. 2006) D 262-827 270 Ww. D A G

U.S. v. Young, 2006 WL

_1835971 (4th Cir. 2006) . — ” ” . " .

US. v. Adolphus, 2006

WL 1835948 (4th Cir. F 92-115 115 W D Ay G

2006)

U.S. v. Esparza, 2006 WL

- 1835964 (4th Cir. 2006) 7 i) 6 bad >}; 4] °¢

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Perry, 2006 WL

1835955 (4th Cir. 2006) ° ” ” ” A .

USS. v. Brown, 2006 WL

1766743 (4th Cir. 2006) bd sei 7 bad ° A .

U.S. v. Staine, 2006 WL

1766122 (4th Cir. 2006) D 262 WwW D A G

(defendant Joseph)

U.S. v. Benavides, 2006

WL 1766121 (4th Cir. I 33-41 33 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Florence, 2006

WL 1722492 (4th Cir. D 268 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hodge, 2006 WL

1722496 (4th Cir. 2006) d ” nd >; 4; °%

U.S. v. Adams, 2006 WL F 92-115 115 W D A G

1667454 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Bustos-Serrano,

2006 WL 1676313 (4th D 168-210 175 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Nichols, 2006 WL

1676334 (4th Cir. 2006) OF | een) bed >»; 4; &

US. v. Briggs, 2006 WL

1642643 (4th Cir. 2006) 0 8 bed D>} A4 | &

U.S. v. De La Rosa, 2006

WL 1642630 (4th Cir. I 46-57 52 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Lowe, 2006 WL ‘

1642639 (4th Cir. 2006) » ® D}|A4 i} &

U.S. v. Barrett, 2006 WL a

1627266 (4th Cir. 2006) je 4 bed » A G

U.S. v. Timmons, 2006

WL 1627234 (4th Cir. D,F 235, 120 W D A G

2006)

BLS

1476922 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Manns, 2006 WL

1627271 (4th Cir. 2006) d e bed o>; 4) &

U.S. v. Christian, 2006

WL 1582706 (4th Cir. D 78 W D A G

_ 2006)

U.S. v. Hammonds, 2006

WL 1582710 (4th Cir. T 300 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Graves, 2006 WL

1541150 (4th Cir. 2006) o |e! & bed D | A G

U.S. v. Garcia-Uribe,

2006 WL 1476923 (4th D 135-168 160 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Moore, 2006 WL .

1476890 (4th Cir. 2006) t ats bed >» | A G

US. v. Eaves, 2006 WL , 165 Ww D A G

1408323 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Owens, 2006 WL

1476915 (4th Cir. 2006) F 18 bad >| 8}

USS. v. Caldwell, 2006

WL 1476185 (4th Cir. F 78 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Billings, 2006 WL

1476872 (4th Cir. 2006) > | =o = bed >; 4;8S

US. v. Lepe-Rodriguez,

2006 WL 1476188 (4th I 63 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Fowler, 2006 WL

1476180 (4th Cir. 2006) . a bed ot Tico Wes

U.S. v. Harmer, 2006 WL

1444592 (4th Cir. 2006) D ate bed > }] 4] &

U.S. v. Dowell, 2006 WL D 188-235 210 W D A G

86S

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Thomas, 2006 WL

1373188 (4th Cir. 2006) Fo | Ste | OST Ww D A G

US. v. Bryant, 2006 WL

1328692 (4th Cir. 2006) DF es hed dD | A G

USS. v. Shatley, 448 F.3d

264 (4th Cir, 2006) 0 ss bad D A G

US. v. Miles, 2006 WL

1328690 (4th Cir. 2006) D | 25208) 25 Ww » A G

U.S. v. Harbin, 2006 WL

1308637 (4th Cir. 2006) » sadheen ned bed ° “ e

USS. v. Kirk, 2006 WL

1308640 (4th Cir, 2006) D ol bad D A G

U.S. v. Espinoza-Barreto,

2006 WL 1233935 (4th I 68 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Oglesbee, 2006

WL 1144512 (4th Cir. O life W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Sanchez, 2006 WL

1144514 (4th Cir. 2006) a. orl & bed >»; A] &G

U.S. v. Wallace, 2006 WL ’

1144497 (4th Cir. 2006) D 262-327 262 W D A G

U.S. v. Navarette-

Beltran, 2006 WL I 57-71 71 WwW D A G

1144495 (4th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Wilfoung, 2006

WL 1144515 (4th Cir. D 210-262 210 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Rita, 2006 WL

- 1144508 (4th Cir, 2006) o ss bed >»; 4] &

US. v. Tyler, 2006 WL F 24-30 27 W D A G

1144520 (4th Cir. 2006)

B19

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Rivera-Magana,

2006 WL 1144511 (4th I 27-33 27 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v.. Bowman, 2006

WL 1130901 (4th Cir. F 63 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Leggett, 2006 WL

1130904 (4th Cir. 2006) v 1 bed D A G

U.S. v. Allen, 2006 WL

1114117 (4th Cir. 2006) F 108 bad D A G

U.S. v. Canady, 2006 WL

1112824 (4th Cir. 2006) D oan hed D | A G

U.S. v. Myers, 2006 WL ,

1068980 (4th Cir. 2006) 7 a) 7” a “ -

U.S. v. Allen, 2006 WL F 92-115 110 W D A C

1068979 (4th Cir. 2006)

Bc9

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Def't | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Montes-Pineda,

445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. I 46-57 46 W D A G

2006) 7

U.S. v. Belser, 2006 WL

1005011 (4th Cir. 2006) ° — ” ° a °

US. v. Burress, 2006 WL "

1005015 (4th Cir. 2006) d wend ” » A S

USS. v. Daniels, 2006 WL :

1005013 (4th Cir. 2006) ° - a a a .

U.S. v. Parker, 2006 WL

994442 (4th Cir. 2006) ar | -_ nd ” . °

U.S. v. Coaxum, 2006 WL

980796 (4th Cir. 2006) S 8 ad >; 4.; ©

U.S. v. Johnson, 445 F.3d

339 (4th Cir. 2006) D 97-121 97 W D A G

U.S. v. Divine, 2006 WL Fr 120 W D A G

908743 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

(4th Cir. 2006)(Apr. 6,

2006 4th Cir.) D aad bed » | A G

US. v. Fitch, 2006 WL

889580 (4th Cir. 2006) » « bed A G

U.S. v. Juarez-Huarte,

2006 WL 889470 (4th Cir. I 27-33 27 W D A G

_ 2006)

US. v. Battle, 2006 WL

889794 (4th Cir. 2006) O | 120-150) 150 bed D A G

U.S. v. Mason, 2006 WL

889573 (4th Cir. 2006) » 1s sad D A G

USS. v. Patton, 2006 WL ,

871290 (4th Cir. 2006) 7], er CS bed D A G

U.S. v. Monahan, 2006 ;

WL 870590 (4th Cir.2006)} * | 30-37 | 30 bed D A G

U.S. v. Moore, 2006 WL E 37 W D A G

871065 (4th Cir. 2006)

Bb9

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Dove, 2006 WL

870582 (4th Cir. 2006) D 84 W D A G

US. v. Green, 2006 WL

786816 (4th Cir. 2006) T 70 W D A G

US. v. Southern, 2006

WL 786812 (4th Cir.2006)| © 320 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Robinson, 2006

WL 775088 (4th Cir. 2006)] © 4 W D A G

U.S. v. Robinson, 2006

| WL 775088 (4th Cir.2006)| 18 W D A G

| U.S. v. Gutierrez-Piza,

2006 WL 751521 (4th Cir. I 30-37 37 W D A G

20006)

USS. v. Rivera-Cruz, 2006 ,

WL 694371 (4th Cir. 2006)} = 12 Ww D A

USS. v. Wallace, 2006 WL a

690967 (4th Cir. 2006) F 180 Ww D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Pineda,

2006 WL 678953 (4th Cir. I 71 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Lewis, 2006 WL

678932 (4th Cir. 2006) °o |= = bed >; 4 G

U.S. v. Keitt, 2006 WL 3

678946 (4th Cir. 2006) 0 bed D A G

U.S. v. MeNair, 2006 WL

678936 (4th Cir. 2006) F | Se] OS bed D A G

U.S. v. Gause, 2006 WL a

615908 (4th Cir. 2006) . id ° “ .

U.S. v. Bruton, 2006 WL

558990 (4th Cir. 2006) D,F bed D A G

U.S. v. Caldwell, 2006

WL 538097 (4th Cir. 2006) ° atoms - ” » . .

U.S. v. Smoot, 2006 WL D 121-151 136 Ww D A G

525496 (4th Cir, 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Blythe, 2006 WL

487811 (4th Cir. 2006) 0 8 W D A | G

U.S. v. Williams, 2006

WL 487156 (4th Cir. 2006) F 48 W D A G

U.S. v. Krizanovic, 2006

WL 485515 (4th Cir. 2006)| © «“ bad D A | G

USS. v. Shultz, 2006 WL

435837 (4th Cir. 2006) 0 46 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Good, 2006 WL

448906 (4th Cir. 2006) F 235-293 252 W D A G

USS. v. Bennett, 2006 WL

372636 (4th Cir. 2006) F 30 Ww D A |; G

U.S. v. O’Briant, 2006 WL

372638 (4th Cir. 2006) t 27 bad dD; A&G

USS. v. Brown, 2006 WL

372639 (4th Cir. 2006) F l2 W D A | G

BLO

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Gaynor, 2006 WL

372622 (4th Cir. 2006) D | 410) % bad D A G

U.S. v. Haskins, 2006 WL

314465 (4th Cir. 2006) v,F a0 bed » A G

US. v. France, 2006 WL

285614 (4th Cir. 2006) » andes an bad D A G

U.S. v. Camara, 2006 WL

237092 (4th Cir, 2006) T | le 10 bed D A G

U.S. v. McDaniels, 2006

WL 2288717 (4th Cir. F 46 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Blanks, 2006 WL é

199479 (4th Cir. 2006) » = a a a

US. v. Haston, 2006 WL D 37 Ww D A G

177565 (4th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Martinez-F lores,

2006 WL 189953 (4th Cir. F 24 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Guzman-

Balbuena, 2006 WL | 70 W D A G

172284 (4th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. McClelland, 2006

WL 172250 (4th Cir. 2006) | 2 wi bed >; 4%

U.S. v. Cox, 2006 WL |

172289 (4th Cir. 2006) r |e; © ad >»; 4] &

U.S. v. Cunningham, 2006

WL 149066 (4th Cir. 2006) | © 186 bed »D;4]|&

U.S. v. Phillips, 2006 WL

26117 (4th Cir. 2006) D Ww D A G

(defendant Ziegler)

US. v. Fox, 2006 WL D 4] W D A ¢

15381 (4th Cir. 2006)

e69

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Dawkins, 2006

WL 10895 (4th Cir, 2006) | * “ bed D A G

USS. v. Barrett, 2006 WL

2992902 (4th Cir. 2006) F 120 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Dennis, 2006 WL

2918748 (4th Cir. 2006) D a6 bid af A G

U.S. v. Faulks, 2006 WL

2683300 (4th Cir. 2006) 0 vas ad » A G

U.S. v. Dinnall, 2006 WL :

1766122 (4th Cir. 2006) - = 7 ° . ”

U.S. v. Staine, 2006 WL :

1766122 (4th Cir. 2006) » life bed D A G

U.S. v. Hardnett, 2006

WL 1446284 (4th Cir. D 392 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Johnson, 2006 WL 0 30 W D A G

487329 (4th Cir. 2006)

BOL

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Dewalt, 2006 WL

149087 (4th Cir. 2006) ° ” wieris;s

U.S. v. Roy, 2006 WL

1307867 (4th Cir. 2006) ° - = ie} *.7 %

BIL

FIFTH CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

U.S. v. Corley, 2006 WL

3019195 (5th Cir. 2006) d A D>}; 4] &

U.S. v. Roach, 2006 WL

2861802 (5th Cir. 2006) od vedas ” a . A “

U.S. v. Angleton, 2006

WL 2828657 (5th Cir. T 60 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Day, 2006 WL

| 2692575 (5th Cir. 2006) T 120 A D A G

U.S. v. Weese, 2006 WL .

2590309 (Sth Cir. 2006) ° ” A le Bile Be

U.S. v. Shankin, 2006 WL :

2337947 (5th Cir. 2006) | ee © A D | A G

BOL

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Hoyos, 181

Fed. Appx. 479 (5th Cir.

2006) D 28 A D A G

U.S. v. Miranda-

Echartea, 188 Fed.Appx. D 70 A D A G

298 (5th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Rios-Joaquina, 188

Fed.Appx. 286 (5th Cir. I 60 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Collins, 188

Fed.Appx. 266 (5th Cir. F 51-63 72 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Clements, 188

Fed. Appx. 267 (5th Cir. T 57-71 84 A D A G

2006)

BEL

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Salinas, 187

Fed.Appx. 396 (5th Cir. D 135-168 240 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Jones, 182

Fed.Appx. 343 (5th Cir. O 24 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Howard, 179

Fed.Appx. 233 (5th Cir. F - -" 84 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Gentry, 178

Fed. Appx. 435 (5th Cir. T 151-188 240 A D A G

2006)

USS. v. Taylor, 179

Fed. Appx. 226 (5th Cir. F 77-96 120 A D A G

2006)

BPrL

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Thomas, 176

Fed.Appx. 625 (5th Cir. T 63-78 96 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Negron Cabrera,

174 Fed. Appx. 856 (5th O 114 \ D A G

_Cir, 2006)

U.S. v. Jones, 444 F.3d

430 (Sth Cir. 2006) S 46-57 120 A D A G

US. v. Reinhart, 442 F.3d : i

857 (5th Cir. 2006) S 121-151 235 A D A G

U.S. v. Smith, 440 F.3d .

_ 704 (5th Cir. 2006) J wast ” a ” a vs

U.S. v. Perez-Guzman,

2006 WL 3102582, 2006

WL 3102582 (5th Cir. I 49 A D A G

2006)

BGL

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

| U.S. v. Guzman-Guzman,

2006 WL 3040637 (5th I 69 A D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Verastegui, 2006

WL 2852399 (5th Cir. F,I 63-78 120 A D A G

2006)

USS. v. Satti, 179

Fed.Appx. 235 (5th Cir. F, I A D A G

2006)

US. v. Sterling, 180

Fed. Appx. 515 (5th Cir. F 120 A D ay G

2006)

U.S. v. Dean, 2006 WL

3005546 (5th Cir. 2006) 7 mat " ” . .

US. v. Delancey, 2006

WL 1996385 (5th Cir. F life A D R D P

2006)

BOL

572318 (5th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Tzep-Majia, 461

F.3d 522 (5th Cir, 2006) ow) = 7 "i;

Unted States v. Johnson,

2006 WL 2277619 (5th D 151-188 144 B D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Brasher, 2006 WL

2167708 (5th Cir. 2006) 7 1. os; © “ i 4;

U.S. v. McCuiston, 183

Fed. Appx. 474 (5th Cir. D B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Daniel, 178 240)

| Fed.Appx. 345 (5th Cir. D amen 120 B D A G

2006)

ry max

U.S. v. Bell, 2006 WL D 120 B D A G

BLL

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Govy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Rodriguez-Ibarra,

180 Fed. Appx. 513 (5th I 41-51 36 B D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Martinez, 178

Fed. Appx. 404 (5th Cir. D 78-98 68 B D A G

_ 2006)

USS. v. Roush, 466 F.3d

"380 (5th Cir, 2006) T 37-46 27 B D R G S

USS. v. Goldsmith, 2006

WL 2034468 (5th Cir. F 27-33 0.1 B G R G S

| 2006)

U.S. v. Armendariz, 451 60-71 60 plus

F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006) plus 3 z

S years | supervis| B G R G S

supervi a

sed

release

BBL

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Duhon, 440 F.3d ; probatio

711 (5th Cir. 2006) > |e; . =} *}% ’

US. v. Guidry, 462 F.3d

373 (Sth Cir. 2006) D 235-293 120 B G R G S

U.S. v. Johnson, 445 F.3d stat

793 (5th Cir. 2006) ; See = i a | 7 | 4 | CS

U.S. v. Ellis, 2006 WL

3102574 (5th Cir. 2006) d - bad ° . .

U.S. v. Watkins, 2006 WL

3311067 (5th Cir. 2006) a | Vw ie, * 2

U.S. v. Petisca, 2006 WL

3230274 (5th Cir. 2006) J bed ° A .

U.S. v. Horsting, 2006

WL 3193368 (5th Cir. O 100-125 100 W D AY G

2006)

U.S. v. Clark, 2006 WL S 5] Ww D A G

3102513 (Sth Cir. 2006)

C6L

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Smith, 2006 WL

| 3068667 (5th Cir. 2006) D bed a A G

U.S. v. Washington, 2006

WL 2882703 (5th Cir.

2006) D, F 262 W D A G

U.S. v. Wishork, WL

2711968 (5th Cir. 2006) S 180 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 465

F.3d 5960 (5th Cir.2006) | ° bed D A G

U.S. v. Vanchaik-Molinar,

2006 WL 2474048 (5th I 51 W D A G

| Cir. 2006)

“US. v. Ray, 2006 WL

2482878 (5th Cir. 2006) D 136 Ww D A G

, US. v. Clark, 2006 WL F 120 Ww D A G

| 2418953 (5th Cir. 2006)

B08

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Underwood, 2006

WL 2460894 (5th Cir. D W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Aguirre-Villa, 460

F.3d 681 (5th Cir, 2006) EE Witeicnslt Wide bed »;4//;]°8

U.S. v. Jones, 2006 WL

2350166 (5th Cir. 2006) d es bed >; 47;{&

U.S. v. Larry, 2006 WL

2337543 (5th Cir. 2006) od ¥ >; 4;8

U.S. v. El-Kareh, 2006

WL 2311112 (5th Cir. T 48 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Llanas-Garcia,

2006 WL 209118 (5th Cir. O 51 W D A G

2006)

B18

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Santoyo-Garcia,

2006 WL 2061833 (5th I 41 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Robinson, 2006

WL 1983201 (5th Cir. F 262 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Poore, 188

Fed. Appx. 245 (5th Cir. D 262 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Bell, 187

Fed.Appx. 418 (5th Cir. D 240 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Candia, 454 F.3d , ‘

468 (5th Cir. 2006) ” on _ - » as .

U.S. v. Medina-Argueta,

454 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. I 30-37 37 W D A G

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

USS. v. Ulloa, 187

Fed. Appx. 367 (5th Cir. D 125 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Lopez-Garces, 186

Fed. Appx. 454 (5th Cir.

2006) I 50 W D A G

U.S. v. Corona-Majatca,

186 Fed. Appx. 436 (5th I W D A G

Cir. 2006) .

U.S. v. Salazar, 183

Fed.Appx. 462 (5th Cir. D W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Kirkham, 182 120, 87

Fed.Appx. 378 (5th Cir. (two

2006) t defenda WwW D A G

nts)

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

U.S. v. Luevano-Orozco,

182 Fed. Appx. 376 (5th

Cir. 2006) I 120 W D A G

U.S. v. Brown, 180

Fed.Appx. 545 (5th Cir. D WwW D A G

2006)

US. v. Aburto, 179

Fed. Appx. 915 (5th Cir. T W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Garcia, 173

Fed.Appx. 358 (5th Cir. D W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Palacios-Mungia,

178 Fed. Appx. 347 (5th I 57-71 57 WwW D A G

ers

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d

987 (5th Cir. 2006) , | eel & nd >} 4] &

U.S. v. Guzman-

Resendez, 2006 WL D 151 W D A G

1050511 (5th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Allison, 447 F.3d life term

402 (5th Cir. 2006) of

S supervis W D A G

release

| U.S. v. Neal, 176

Fed.Appx. 542 (5th Cir. F 115 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Gant, 176

Fed. Appx. 520 (5th Cir. D W D A G

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Williams, 176

Fed.Appx. 449 (5th Cir. D 37 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. McDonald, 176

Fed.Appx. 43 (5th Cir. T 37-46 37 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hollins, 174

Fed. Appx. 855 (5th Cir. S WwW D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Reyes, 172

Fed.Appx. 626 (5th Cir. D 12 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Meraz, 174

Fed.Appx. 196 (5th Cir. I W D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Thomas, 172

Fed.Appx. 601 (5th Cir. D 210 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Jackson, 172

Fed.Appx. 599 (5th Cir. D 324 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ventura,172

Fed.Appx. 585 (5th Cir. D W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Salee, 170

Fed. Appx. 891 (5th Cir. D Ww D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Prado, 169

Fed. Appx. 917 (5th Cir. D 188 W D A G

2006)

®L8

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev'd | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Castillo, 169

Fed.Appx. 909 (5th Cir. I W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Zuniga-Peralta,

442 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. I 60 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Bailey, 169

Fed.Appx. 815 (5th Cir. O 120 W D A G

2006) J

U.S. v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d

551 (5th Cir. 2006) » enna ” bed ” a °

U.S. v. Matinez-Melchor,

161 Fed.Appx. 401 (5th I 63 W dD A G

Cir. 2006)

| 3231466 (5th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Murietta-

Maldonado, 161 :

Fed. Appx. 374 (5th Cir. » bed o>; 4; 4

2006)

U.S. v. Vega-Soto, 2006

WL 3326920 (5th Cir.

2006) I 96 W D A G

U.S. v. Flores-Luevano,

2006 WL 3326911 (5th

Cir. 2006) I 41 W D A G

U.S. v. Garcia-

| Hernandez, 2006 WL I 57 W .t 22s

868

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Hernandez-Ponce,

2006 WL 3230160 (5th I 46 W D A ae

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Mendoza-Galvan,

2006 WL 3147473 (5th I 41 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Gonzales, 2006

WL 3059941 (5th Cir. S 135 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Jimenez, 2006 WL

2852351 (5th Cir. 2006) d ibe bid >| 4 .

U.S. v. Coleman, 2006

WL 2689866 (5th Cir. F W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. McLemore, 2006

WL 2683340 (5th Cir. T W D A G

2006)

806

386 (5th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Garcia-Garcia,

2006 WL 2474089 (5th

Cir. 2006) I 41 W D A G

U.S. v. Wood, 2006 WL

2350164 (5th Cir. 2006) ' ” sad mot * 4 8

U.S. v. Anaya-Valdez,

2006 WL 2089392 (5th I W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Thomas, 2006 WL

2034641 (5th Cir. 2006) d . 2 oe

U.S. v. Rivero, 185

Fed. Appx. 378 (5th Cir. D 292 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Le, 178 Fed. Appx. 0 W D A G

®16

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Def’t d | Deft | Subst

US. v. Lizama-Diaz, 178

Fed. Appx. 396 (5th Cir. I 46 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Geeslin, 447 F.3d

408 (5th Cir, 2006) . ad 7. 2

U.S. v. Ramirez-Rosas,

177 Fed. Appx. 379 (5th I 70-87 70 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Villa, 173

Fed. Appx. 335 (5th Cir. T . D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Rojas-Duquez, 170

Fed.Appx. 908 (5th Cir. I 57-71 60 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ekene, 2006 WL T W D A G

| 2465402 (5th Cir. 2006)

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence| Below Affd ft | Subst

U.S. v. Moody, 2006 WL |

2861445 (5th Cir. 2006) . * - | @ 2

U.S. v. Rivera-Cerda,

2006 WL 2711966 (5th O W D A G

Cir. 2006)

US. v. Furlow, 2006 WL

2460894 (5th Cir. 2006) . st bed >; 4;S&

U.S. v. Hunter, 188

Fed.Appx. 315 (5th Cir. O 24 W D A G

_ 2006)

U.S. v. Camarillo-De La

Cruz, 174 Fed.Appx. 244 I W D A G

(5th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Hidalgo-Peralta,

166 Fed. Appx. 762 (5th 0 12 W D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Def't d_| Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Orona, 166

Fed.Appx. 765 (5th Cir. S W D A G

2006)

US. v. Green, 162

Fed. Appx. 283 (5th Cir. O 18 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Rivere, 178

Fed.Appx. 445 (5th Cir. T 150 W D A G

2006)

SIXTH CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Govy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Anderson, 187

Fed. Appx. 517 (6th Cir. O | 12-18] 36 A | Both| A G

2006)

USS. v. Reid, 2006 WL

3314556 (6th Cir, 2006) o | Si ots A »; 4] &

US. v. Roberts, 2006 WL

2827679 (6th Cir. 2006) D | 76 | 1 A D;A | &

US. v. Lossia, 2006 WL

2431008 (6th Cir. 2006) rT [|@-B;) & A ee dee Ben.

U.S. v. Ferguson, 456

F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2006) 0 046 1s A i Dax Clee

US. v. Barton, 455 F.3d 100 -

649 (6th Cir. 2006) f 125 1 A oe oe

| US. v. Soto, 2006 WL tent “ ‘ ns oer o

2045488 (6th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Hopson, 2006 WL

1913414 (6th Cir, 2006) 7 {ei & wl Td ete Cen

U.S. v. Mathney, 450 F.3d

633 (6th Cir, 2006) F,D | 24-30 36 A D A G

U.S. v. Brown, 163

Fed. Appx. 370 (6th Cir. O 12 - 18 24 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Slodoba, 162

Fed.Appx. 550 (6th Cir. O 3-9 12 A D A G

2006)

Johnson v. U.S., 179

Fed. Appx. 246 (6th Cir. O 5-11 48 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Carr, 421 F.3d 425 0 9 16 A D A G

(6th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Mackie, 173

Fed.Appx. 427 (6th Cir. 0 5-11 24 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Mendoza, 2006 135 -

WL 2787017 (6th Cir. D 168 200 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ray, 2006 WL 235 -

2042651 (6th Cir. 2006) 290,

300

month

S statuto 600 A D R D P

mandat

ory

min

US. v. Yopp, 453 F.3d

770 (6th Cir. 2006) ° ” “ a » i; 2; °® d

816

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Jackson, 2006 WL

3059886 (6th Cir. 2006) y {[S-e) 6 5 >; 4] Ss

US. v. Deveaux, 2006 210

WL 2827672 (6th Cir. D 962 180 B D A G

2006)

USS. v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d

445 (6th Cir. 2006) O 97 - 121 80 B D A G

USS. v. Fonseca, 2006 WL

2440978 (6th Cir. 2006) D 1c . nt Bode Tn:

U.S. v. Fonseca, 2006 WL 151 -

2440978 (6th Cir. 2006) ° 188 ses . i So i 8

U.S. v. Gomez, 2006 WL

2168011 (6th Cir. 2006) Do | wm = B 8 & 3s

U.S. v. Ybarra-Moreno,

2006 WL 2042918 (6th I 57 - 71 54 B D A G

Cir. 2006)

| 2006)

a Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Govy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Carroll, 2006 WL

2042652 (6th Cir. 2006) eM sere - 7 n

US. v. Eason, 188

Fed. Appx. 383 (6th Cir. D, O life 480 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Redmond, 188

Fed.Appx. 377 (6th Cir. T 33 - 41 30 B D A G

| 2006)

USS. v. Currie, 183 130 -

Fed. Appx. 536 (6th Cir. F 162 120 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Willis, 176 269 -

Fed.Appx. 653 (6th Cir. D 397 240 B D A G

2006)

| U.S. v. Savoea, 166

Fed.Appx. 183 (6th Cir. T,F | 927-? 840 B D A G

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence| Below | Deft d t bst

US. v. Satterfield, 2006

WL 2986449 (6th Cir. D 87 - 108 36 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ossa-Gallagos, 453

F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2006) : |a-8) & . >| A S

U.S. v. Collington, 461 188 -

F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2006) D 235 im B S|] A »

U.S. v. Davis, 458 F.3d

491 (6th Cir. 2006) T 30 - 37 1 day B G R G S

U.S. v. Roberts, 2006 WL ' , mandat

2827679 (6th Cir. 2006) » life = | on | @ | A :

U.S. v. Roberts, 2006 WL 20

2827679 (6th Cir. 2006) D years 240 mandat D A G

(mand min

Rit min)

ie i

U.S. v. Caswell, 456 F.3d F 46-57 51 Ww D A G

| 652 (6th Cir. 2006)

®00T

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Johnson, 171

Fed.Appx. 499 (6th Cir. F 86 W D A G

2006)

USS. v Ely, 2006 WL

3313949 (6th Cir, 2006) o [| e-si & sed 7; 4;S8S

U.S. v. Bernal-Aveja,

2006 WL 3314539 (6th I 57 - 71 57 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Boyd, 2006 WL 100 -

3307476 (6th Cir. 2006) d 120 | 1% bed 77; 4 j°&

U.S. v. Waterford, 2006 ose.

WL 3279855 (6th Cir. D 312 300 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. McCaskill, 2006 188 -

WL 3026226 (6th Cir. T 235, 188 W D A G

2006)

®I01

2572064 (6th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Nickson, 2006 WL

2930105 (6th Cir. 2006) AE Nantitde Wms bed ht Bude Bes

U.S. v. Washington, 2006

WL 2873368 (6th Cir. G, F 21-27 21 W D A G

2006) |

U.S. v. Foreman, 2006

WL 2873176 (6th Cir. F 57 - 71 57 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Jones, 2006 WL 151 -

2769314 (6th Cir. 2006) D 188 186 bed D |} A G

US. v. Bowen, 2006 WL 360 -

2571992 (6th Cir. 2006) D lite | ™ bed >; 4;&

U.S. v. Bergold, 2006 WL

2571999 (6th Cir, 2006) D |%-10) & bad tt Gres G

U.S. v. Dixon, 2006 WL D 21 -27 9} w D A G

8301

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t ; Rev'd | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Villa-Gomez, 2006 151

WL 2497885 (6th Cir. 7 1 38. 152 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Cruz, 461 F.3d 752

(6th Cir. 2006) O 97 - 121 108 W D A G

U.S. v. Whitemore, 2006

WL 2472855 (6th Cir. F 92-115 94 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Fonseca, 2006 WL 121 -

2440978 (6th Cir. 2006) » 151 ist bad >»; 41,86

U.S. v. Morris, 2006 WL

U.S. v. Underwood, 2006

WL 2381611 (6th Cir. F,D 100 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Benson, 2006 WL F,D 360 - 360 W D A G

2380882 (6th Cir. 2006)

life

BEOl

| 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Harden, 2006 WL 188 -

2373259 (6th Cir. 2006) d 235 = id >} 4 G

U.S. v. Cage, 458 F.3d 537

(6th Cir, 2006) T 37 - 46 37 W D A G

U.S. v. Davis, 458 F.3d

505 (6th Cir. 2006) O 37 - 46 37 W D A G

U.S. v. Jenkins, 2006 WL 100 -

2329872 (6th Cir. 2006) d 125 “ bed » A S

USS. v. Sake, 2006 WL

2188707 (6th Cir. 2006) D |%-t) me bed D>} 4; &

U.S. v. Wynn, 2006 WL 100 -

| 2168207 (6th Cir. 2006) ME Disk Deke att Bt Bo

U.S. v. Perez-Garcia, 2006

WL 2168196 (6th Cir. I 77-96 77 W D A G

BPOl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Walker, 188 188 -

Fed.Appx. 433 (6th Cir. T 235 208 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Henley, 2006 WL

2168216 (6th Cir, 2006) | 2»9 | 46-57] % nl Bie Bal Tew

U.S. v. Melton, 188

Fed.Appx. 428 (6th Cir. D 97 - 121 120 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Garcia-Perez, 2006

| WL 2075253 (6th Cir. I 2-96 96 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Shoup, 188

Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. O 51 - 60 51 W D A G

2006)

| U.S. v. Lynch, 188

Fed.Appx. 416 (6th Cir. D 150 W D A G

2006)

BGOl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Senten elow t | Affd ft | Subst

U.S. v. Caraway, 2006 262 -

WL 2042895 (6th Cir. F 997 302 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Greer, 2006 WL

2042658 (6th Cir. 2006) ° wothen - ba ° - .

U.S. v. Harness, 453 F.3d

752 (6th Cir. 2006) , joe) & bad >; 4]; °&

U.S. v. Skibo, 188 as.

Fed. Appx. 373 (6th Cir. T 128 154 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Worley, 453 F.3d

706 (6th Cir. 2006) » Ls bed > }] 4] &

U.S. v. Mickens, 453 F.3d

668 (6th Cir. 2006) . elites we bed » a .

U.S. v. Hernandez-

Fierros, 453 F.3d 309 (6th I 30 - 37 30 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

8901

| 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Zerilli, 187

Fed. Appx. 529 (6th Cir. O 63 - 78 71 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Benson, 186 360 -

Fed.Appx. 648 (6th Cir. T life 540 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Leppen, 187

Fed.Appx. 504 (6th Cir. D 140 -? 140 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Overton, 186 210 -

Fed.Appx. 607 (6th Cir. D 262 210 W D A G

2006)

_ US. v. Sanford, 186

Fed.Appx. 614 (6th Cir. F 92 - 115 92 W D A G

BLO

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Haworth, 187

Fed. Appx. 458 (6th Cir. S 41-51 41 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Louis, 185

Fed.Appx. 500 (6th Cir. I 70 - 87 78 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Lumley, 185

Fed. Appx. 495 (6th Cir. D 90 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Delaney, 185 295 -

Fed. Appx. 492 (6th Cir. F 293 240 W D A G

| 2006)

U.S. v. Jackson, 186

Fed. Appx. 579 (6th Cir. D 27 - 33 33 W D A G

2006)

Bg0I

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov't | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Bustos, 186

Fed.Appx. 551 (6th Cir. D,F | 97-121 120 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Buchannan, 449

F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2006) EE Geichitends tt w 1 eT eS i

U.S. v. McWhirter, 184

Fed. Appx. 467 (6th Cir. F 57 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Porter, 181 235, -

Fed.Appx. 545 (6th Cir. D 293 235 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Speight, 183 188 -

Fed. Appx. 532 (6th Cir. F 235 175 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Cheney, 183

Fed.Appx. 516 (6th Cir. F 37 - 46 37 W D A G

| 2006)

8601

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Morris, 448 F.3d 57 - 71,

929 (6th Cir. 2006) O capped 57 W D A G

at 60

U.S. v. Carrillo-

Hernandez, 181

Fed.Appx. 522 (6th Cir. : |e-e) & Ae ade Tite Wing

2006)

U.S. v. Crenshaw, 182

Fed. Appx. 440 (6th Cir. F 92 - 115 115 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ward, 447 F.3d 188 - ;

869 (6th Cir. 2006) 1’ ion | = ad =) ej)

' US. v. Coffee, 180

Fed. Appx. 562 (6th Cir. T 12 W D A G

2006)

POTT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Diaz, 179 =

Fed. Appx. 938 (6th Cir. D 60 - 63 61 W D A G

2006)

USS. v. Pickett, 179

Fed.Appx. 315 (6th Cir. F W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hill, 179

Fed.Appx. 280 (6th Cir. F 46 - 57 46 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Jackson, 179

Fed. Appx. 283 (6th Cir. F 92 -1le 108 Ww D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Jones, 445 F.3d

865 (6th Cir. 2006) T 6-12 12 W D A G

U.S. v. Brown, 444 F.3d 262 -

| 519 (6th Cir. 2006) - ign | = a hth Todt Boe

BITl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Nguyen, 176

Fed. Appx. 634 (6th Cir. D 51 - 63 60 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Bolanos, 174

Fed. Appx. 320 (6th Cir. D 70 - 87 84 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Cowan, 174

Fed.Appx. 307 (6th Cir. T 46 - 57 50 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Mullins, 173

Fed. Appx. 400 (6th Cir. O 4-10 8 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hope, 167

Fed.Appx. 531 (6th Cir. T 51-63 54 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Katzopoulus, 437 , 93-4] 93 W D A G

F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2006)

L774 at

2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Ediger, 166

Fed.Appx. 218 (6th Cir. T 33 - 41 36 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Richardson, 437 151 -

F.3d 550 (6th Cir, 2006) bl i | hed A Tt Th

U.S. v. Alford, 436 F.3d 110 -

677 (6th Cir, 2006) , 129 | 1 bed >; 4} °&

U.S. v. Cortez, 166

| Fed. Appx. 196 (6th Cir. I 46 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Williams, 436 F.3d .

706 (6th Cir. 2006) , [ee oS bed >}; 47] °&

U.S. v. Spates, 162

Fed.Appx. 592 (6th Cir. T 27 - 33 27 W D A G

esil

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Till, 434 F.3d 880 151 -

(6th Cir. 2006) 188,

F stat. 120 W D A G

max of

120

U.S. v. McBride, 434 F.3d

470 (6th Cir. 2006) T 77 - 96 78 W D A G

U.S.v. Seymour, 2006 WL :

3300002 (6th Cir, 2006) . we hee ott Teed ee

U.S. v. Moore, 180 151 -

Fed. Appx. 571 (6th Cir. T 188 180 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Ibarra, 179

| Fed. Appx. 317 (6th Cir. I 46 - 57 46 Ww D A G

| 2006)

ePlT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Giles, 170

Fed.Appx. 414 (6th Cir. F 77 - 96 84 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Johnson, 184 135 -

Fed. Appx. 498 (6th Cir. D 168 144 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Johson, 2006 WL

3069075 (6th Cir. 2006) d alihd sas ie - . ° 7

U.S. v. Blackwell, 459

F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2006) ° os bed >; 4] &

BcIT

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Bullion, 466 F.3d

574 (7th Cir. 2006) EE bec Wiens A >; 4 G

U.S. v. Zimmer, 2006 WL

U.S. v. Leahy, 464 F.3d

773 (7th Cir. 2006) 7 i oi & A o>}; 4] °8&%

U.S. v. Valle, 458 F.3d

652 (7th Cir. 2006) T 100-125 139 A D A G

U.S. v. Howard, 454 F.3d

700 (7th Cir. 2006) . | =a = A >; 4]&

U.S. v. Tautan, 185

Fed. Appx. 524 (7th Cir. T 24-30 40 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Walker, 447 F.3d O 168-210 240 A D A G

999 (7th Cir. 2006)

eoTl

987 (7th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Jones, 156 Fed.

Appx. 852 (7th Cir. 2005) 0 S14 18 A D A G

USS. v. Filipiak, 466 F.3d

582 (7th Cir. 2006) T 33-41 24 B D A G

US. v. Stevens, 2006 WL

2787777 (7th Cir. 2006) » one 5 >| A G

U.S. v. Watkins, 2006 WL

2787719 (7th Cir. 2006) > |e 5 >; A G

U.S. v. Ibarra, 2006 WL

2016297 (7th Cir. 2006) a, S& “ »; 4;S

US. v. Poole, 173 |

Fed. Appx. 488 (7th Cir. T | 108-135| 60 B D A G

2006)

US. v. Hewlett, 453 F.3d

| 876 (7th Cir. 2006) D Life 240 B G A D

]

US. v. Baker, 445 F.3d 0.8 | 108-135 87 B G A D

eLIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Wallace, 458 F.3d Probatio

606 (7th Cir, 2006) 7 |e l ; . . i} > S .

USS. v. Jointer, 457 F.3d

682 (7th Cir, 2006) D 135-168 87 B G R G S

U.S. v. Galicia-Cardenas,

443 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. I 41-51 27 B G R G S

2006)

US. v. Repking, 2006 WL

3201034 (7th Cir, 2006) T 41-51 1 day B G R G S

US. v. Triliegi, 2006 WL Mand.

3147242 (7th Cir. 2006) > ;,_ee) = ia | PT A CS

USS. v. Collins, 170 Fed. stat

Appx 421(%th Cir.g006) | * | 22-251) 2 | | 2 | A G

US. v. Wurzinger, 2006

WL 3055954 (7th Cir. D 210-262 262 W D A G

2006)

®SIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Roberson, 2006 168-

WL 3077144 (7th Cir. 210; ; :

2006) dD | 198 a W p|a le

235;

210-262

U.S. v. Roche-Martinez,

2006 WL 2972698 (7th I 57 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Lopez-Estrada,

2006 WL 3000746 (7th I 57-71 57 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Jordan, 2006 WL

2927424 (7th Cir. 2006) » 10 bed 7.) S25 =

U.S. v. Perez, 2006 WL 360-

2683440 (7th Cir. 2006) 7 isan | bed te Fen Bs

U.S. v. Gonzalez, 462 F.3d D 269-327 276 W D A G

754 (7th Cir. 2006)

®6L1

F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Govy’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

US. v. Rivera, 463 F.3d

598 (7th Cir. 2006) . |e bad D A G

US. v. Flowers, 2006 WL

2528479 (7th Cir. 2006) D 0 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Rinaldi, 461 F.3d

922 (7th Cir. 2006) T 15-21 21 W D A G

US. v. Steele, 2006 WL

2422830 (7th Cir. 2006) ft |i] & bed D A G

U.S. v. Cooper, 461 F.3d

850 (7th Cir. 2006) D 240 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Santamaria-

_ Vasquez, 2006 WL I 40 W D A G

2433894 (7th Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Turner, 2006 WL fi 5

2457383 (7th Cir. 2006) . =e = bad >; 4 “

U.S. v. Brazinskas, 455 Tt |110-137| 120 W D A G

B0Z1

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Mendoza, 457 F.3d

726 (7th Cir, 2006) Wy 108 bed D;A4Ai&

U.S. v. Bay, 2006 WL

2933915 (7th Cir. 2006) Wy 3 bed >; 47; &

U.S. v. Rush, 2006 WL

2266985 (7th Cir. 2006) » aes bed » “ .

US. v. Ramsey, 186

Fed. Appx. 686 (7th Cir. F 18-24 21 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Garner, 454 F.3d

743 (7th Cir. 2006) F 100-125 120 W D A G

U.S. v. Cardona, 2006 WL

2076422 (7th Cir. 2006) D 168-210 168 W D A G

U.S. v. McLee, 2006 WL 262-327

2089199 (7th Cir. 2006) T + 60 262 + 60 W D A G

mand.

consec.

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Murph-Jackson,

187 Fed. Appx. 653 (7th T 262 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Gurinas, 187

Fed. Appx. 647 (7th Cir. T 15-21 15 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Gordon, 2006 WL

2045718 (7th Cir. 2006) . oe hed >}; 4; °

U.S. v. Tyra, 454 F.3d 686

(7th Cir. 2006) a on bad a A G

U.S. v. Rosby, 454 F.3d

670 (7th Cir. 2006) T,O aad bd >»; 4] °&

| U.S. v. Jones, 454 F.3d

U.S. v. Santos, 2006 WL D 120-135 120 w D A G

2033698 (7th Cir. 2006)

e221

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

USS. v. Blue, 453 F.3d 948

(7th Cir, 2006) F 46-57 46 W D A G

US. v. Grigg, 186

Fed.Appx. 679 (7th Cir. S 37-46 37 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Graves, 184 360-

Fed.Appx. 579 (7th Cir. D Life 360 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Gutierrez-Ruiz,

184 Fed. Appx. 564 (7th D 210 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Miller, 450 F.3d

270 (7th Cir, 2006) 7 ew iret ay, ®

U.S. v. Ramirez-Ibarra,

182 Fed. Appx. 591 (7th I 70 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

®Ecl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. McKee, 182

Fed.Appx. 593 (7th Cir. D 112 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971

U.S. v. Payan, 182

Fed.Appx. 560 (7th Cir. D 235 W D A G

2006)

_US. v. Lenover, 182

_ Fed. Appx. 563 (7th Cir. D Life Life WwW D A G

— 2006)

| U.S. v. Farris, 448 F.3d

965 (7th Cir. 2006) o ma bed ie}

US. v. Spano, 447 F.3d

517 (7th Cir. 2006) bd “ vi 7; 4;

®bZl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Thurman, 179

Fed. Appx. 971 (7th Cir. D 96 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Trombetta, 177

Fed.Appx. 492 (7th Cir. D 110 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Martinez, 173

Fed. Appx. 529 (7th Cir. D | 188-235] 188 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Mitchell, 176

Fed.Appx. 676 (7th Cir. O 24 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Leal, 175

Fed. Appx. 763 (7th Cir. D 37-46 38 W D A G

2006)

_ U.S. v. Moore, 2006 WL 41-51 41

906435 (7th Cir, 2006) T | 3341 | 33 lt Th Bs Fn

eccl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Coleman, 175

Fed.Appx. 756 (7th Cir. D 78-97 92 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Davis, 442 F.3d

1003 (7th Cir. 2006) bd bas ” 7,4 ;*

U.S. v. Barnes, 173

Fed.Appx. 522 (7th Cir. T 87 WwW D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Reyes-Acosta, 173

Fed.Appx. 494 (7th Cir. I 57-71 57 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Martinez-

Martinez, 442 F.3d 539 I 41-51 41 W D A G

(7th Cir. 2006)

United States v. Owens,

441 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. T 57-71 60 W D A G

2006)

e9ZI

Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev'd | Govy’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Andrlik, 178

Fed. Appx. 455 (7th Cir. D 46-57 57 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Ellis, 440 F.3d 434

(7th Cir. 2006) O 18-24 18 Ww D A G

U.S. v. Heintzelman, 170

Fed.Appx. 427 (7th Cir. D 135 Ww D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Sandoval-

Vasquez, 435 F.3d 739 D 235-293 235 W D \ G

(7th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Cervantes-Lopez,

165 Fed. Appx. 485 (7th I 70 Ww D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Romero-Pedroza,

167 Fed. Appx. 576 (7th I 57-71 64 W D A G

BLZ1

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

“US. v. Brisson, 448 F.3d T 90 w D A G

989 (7th Cir. 2006)

USS. v. Marty, 450 F.3d

687 (7th Cir. 2006) > ive, = 7 2e 7 aT

US. v. Beatty, 189 Fed.

Appx. (7th Cir. 2006) d e bed tt Gade Tia

U.S. v. Tejeda-Lorenzo,

189 Fed. Appx. (7th Cir. D 97-121 97 WwW D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Juarez, 454 F.3d

717 (7th Cir. 2006) d =o 7 we . a S

USS. v. Brooks, 188 Fed.

Appx. 520 (7th Cir.2006) | 2 | 151-188] — 150 w | Pes

U.S. v. Murillo-Guerrero,

2006 WL 2547399 (7th I 46-57 46 W D A G

_ Cir. 2006)

B8cI

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Scott, 2006 WL

2548413 (7th Cir. 2006) D 151-181 151 W D A G

US. v. Thornton, 463

F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2006) d bed ts 2s

US. v. Loizzi, 2006 WL

2864624 (7th Cir. 2006) > |e Ft bad A Dake Hue

U.S. v. Fortner, 2006 WL

3016922 (7th Cir, 2006) 2 = = we | eS Oe

US. v. Cortez-Mendez,

162 Fed. Appx.610 (7th ] 46 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Rutherford, 158

Fed. Appx. 742 (7th Cir. I 24 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Contreras, 159

Fed. Appx. 733 (7th Cir. D 235-193 235 W D A G

2006)

8621

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of line Above | Gov't | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Hanson, 160 Fed.

Appx 474 (7th Cir.2006) | D | 166210) 180 ” Dp}; 4} &

U.S. v. Amuda, 160 Fed.

Appx. 476 (7th Cir. 2006) | * an sed oll Tilt ae

U.S. v. Henry, 153 Fed.

Appx. 977 (7th Cir. 2006) |? aes had D>} 4}; °&

US. v. Barajas-

Hernandez, 140 Fed. I 18 W D A G

Appx. 626 (7th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Melendez, 2006

WL 3040749 (7th Cir. D 292-365 300 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Laufle, 433 F.3d

981 (7th Cir. 2006) ” sented ws bed a . .

U.S. v. Johnson, 161 Fed.

Appx. 600 (7th Cir. 2006) t G-1S % bed » A G

B0ET

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of line Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Vaughn, 433 F.3d

917 (7th Cir, 2006) bd an wee

US. v. Cordero-Guzman,

2006 WL 3314514 (7th | 18 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Smith, 2006 WL

2457462 (7th Cir. 2006) , | @8/ & bed ui Cee Chie: ,

U.S. v. Hankton, 463 F.3d D 300 W D A G

626 (7th Cir. 2006) D 210 W D A G

®TE1

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Govy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Lyons, 450 F.3d

834 (8th Cir. 2006) T 70-87 180 A D A G

U.S. v. Tensley, Jr., 2006

WL 2661154 (8th Cir. F 63-78 84 A D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Mallory, 2006 WL

U.S. v. Maurstad, 454

F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2006) >» \|or | & A .-? * FS

U.S. v. Meyer, 452 F.3d

998 (8th Cir. 2006) “ ave A 71,8}

U.S. v. Bird, 450 F.3d 789

(8th Cir. 2006) O 46-57 67 A D A G

U.S. v. Anderson, 440 T 87-108 120 A D A G

F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2006)

eEl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

US. v. Porter, 439 F.3d

845 (8th Cir. 2006) F 57-71 120 A D A G

U.S. v. Hawkman, 438

F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2006) - jet) A 2.) 4"

U.S. v. Ademi, 439 F.3d

964 (8th Cir. 2006) I 37-46 47 A D A G

US v. Kelly, 436 F.3d 992

(8th Cir. 2006) F 70-87 96 A D A G

U.S. v. Sitting Bear, 436

F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2006) °° |e = A yi, 41S

U.S. v. Marshall, 486 F.3d

929 (8th Cir. 2006) 7 ee) = . - . °

U.S. v. Larrabee, 436

F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2006) ° | = = A >}; 4;°&

USS. v. Nelson, 453 F.3d D 4-10 24 A D A G

1004 (8th Cir. 2006)

veel

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

USS. v. Chase, 451 F.3d

474 (8th Cir. 2006) O 57-71 96 A D A G

U.S. v. Mack, 452 F.3d

744 (8th Cir. 2006) > | oe) & A aM Tend Shin.

U.S. v. Hacker, 450 F.3d

808 (8th Cir, 2006) = 92-115 180 A D A G

U.S. v. Porchia, 180

Fed. Appx. 596 (8th Cir. D 6-12 24 A D A G

2006)

USS. v. Larison, 432 F.3d

921 (8th Cir. 2006) > ; SH 60 A D;|A | &

U.S. v. Hawk Wing, 433

F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2006) ' | 8 A >; 4] &

USS. v. Kendall, 446 F.3d D 97-33 84 A D R D s

782 (8th Cir. 2006)

Brel

Who If

Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

lines Above | Goy’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd Subst

US. v. D.A.L.D., 2006

WL 3230091 (8th Cir. 46-57 24 B D A G

2006)

USS. v. Davis, 2006 WL

3161928 (8th Cir. 2006) aes; . >; 4i]&

U.S. v. Whipple, 2006 WL

2714924 (8th Cir. 2006) 5) 38 5 7,4;

U.S. v. Pamperin, 456

F.3d 822 (8th Cir, 2006) seen) . »} 4} °&

U.S. v. Dieatrick, 2006

WL 1913440 (8th Cir. 120-? 72 B D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Longoria, 186

Fed. Appx. 699 (8th Cir. 70-87 48 B D A G

2006)

egsl

of lines Above Gov't Rev'd

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Senten low | Deft | Affd

U.S. v. Bassinger, 183

Fed. Appx. 588 (8th Cir. D ?-240 216 B D A

2006)

USS. v. Pierce, 179

Fed. Appx. 975 (8th Cir. F 27-33 21 B D A

2006)

U.S. v. Alexander, 170

Fed. Appx. 992 (8th Cir. D 12 B D A

2006)

U.S. v. Berni, 439 F.3d

990 (8th Cir, 2006) D 188-235 96 B D A

U.S. v. Morin, 437 F.3d 394-405

777 (8th Cir. 2006) ° wa . » a

US. v. Olthoff, 487 F.3d F 110-120 92 B D A

729 (8th Cir. 2006)

Bgl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev'd | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

US. v. Puckett, 163

Fed.Appx. 430 (8th Cir. O 6 B D A G

2006) .

U.S. v. Worthing, 434

F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2006) | 1 | 152-188) = 120 . o>) 8 49

US. v. Gaver, 452 F.3d

1007 (8th Cir, 2006) ry | oe 6® 5 a

USS. v. Scott, 448 F.3d

1040 (8th Cir, 2006) . we ” “ ° - .

US. v. Blanchard, 162

Fed. Appx. 655 (8th Cir. D,F |324-405| 228 B D A G

2006)

US. v. Krutsinger, 449

U.S. v. Maloney, 466 F.3d F 860-life 130 B G R G S

663 (8th Cir. 2006)

BLsl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Beal, 463 F.3d 834

(8th Cir. 2006) D 188-235 84 B G R G S

U.S. v. McDonald, 461

F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2006) D 262-327 132 B G R G S

USS. v. Portillo, 458 F.3d

828 (8th Cir. 2006) D 188-235 120 B G R G S

U.S. v. Robinson, 454 Pro-

F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2006) en ete oe 7715; Ss S

U.S. v. Brown, 453 F.3d ;

1024 (8th Cir, 2006) D 360-life 240 B G R G S

U.S. v. Smith, 450 F.3d

856 (8th Cir. 2006) D 262-327 204 B G R G P

U.S. v. Medearis, 451 f.3D Pro- '

918 (8th Cir. 2006) FD | OT | uation 5 G R ° S

U.S. v. Ture, 450 F.3d 352 Pro-

(8th Cir. 2006) O 12-18 | bation+ B G R G S

¥8EI

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

U.S. v. Rogers, 448 F.3d

1033 (8th Cir. 2006) F 51-63 12 B G R G S/P

U.S. v. Gall, 446 F.3d 884 probatio

(8th Cir, 2006) o |oo » lt inde Wes S

U.S. v. Bueno, 443 F.3d

1017 (8th Cir. 2006) | == & . i] } °

U.S. v. Lazenby, 489 F.3d | - :

928 (8th Cir. 2006) D 70-87 12 B G R G S

U.S. v. Rivera, 439 F.3d

446 (8th Cir. 2006) D 188-235 60 B G R G P

US. v. Myers, 439 F.3d

415 (8th Cir. 2006) oe) = “ .i jis d

U.S. v. Claiborne, 439

F.3d 479 (8th Cir. 2006) ” vidio ” . ° - a °

U.S. v. Gatewood, 438 F 63-78 36 B G R G S

F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2006)

®6E1

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Aff'd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Shafer, 488 F.3d

1225 (8th Cir. 2006) S one net s ° . . .

U.S. v. MeMannus, 436

F.3d 871 8th Cir. 2006) > | aul . G R G S

USS. v. Brinton, 436 F.3d

871 (8th Cir. 2006) D 262-327 120 B G R G S

U.S. v. Feemster, 435 '

F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2006) D> |e 5 G R G P

US. v. Collier, 2006 WL

2290513 (8th Cir. 2006) D | 182) @ 5 G R G P

U.S. v. Lee, 454 F.3d 836

(8th Cir. 2006) D 262-327 120 B G R G S

U.S. v. Bradford, 447

F.3d 1026 (8th Cir.2006) | PD | 110-187) = 36 B G R G s

U.S. v. Bryant, 446 F.3d D 70-87 30 B G R G g

1317 (8th Cir. 2006)

BOFT

_ 3161928 (8th Cir. 2006)

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev'd | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Givens, 443 F.3d

U.S. v. Goody, 442 F.3d

1132 (8th Cir. 2006) D 168-210 72 B G R G S

U.S. v. Mentzos, II, 462

F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2006) S <0 bed >; 4] &

US. v. Perry, 2006 WL

3230094 (8th Cir. 2006) J 21 bed DD} A} &

U.S. v. Larkins, 2006 WL

3208671 (8th Cir. 2006) ° wed bed » A .

U.S. v. Muhammad, 2006

WL 3161928 (8th Cir. D 360-life 360 W D A G

2006)

US. v. Francis, 2006 WL

3161928 (8th Cir. 2006) > | ee | oO bed A | G

US. v. Francis, 2006 WL D life life Ww D A G

BIPrl

Who If

Type | Guide- _ | Within | App.: Won? | Rev'd:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

US. v. Ellison, 2006 WL

314733 (8th Cir. 2006) T os bed dD; 4}; &

U.S. v. Martinez, 2006

WL 3078924 (8th Cir. I 84 Ww D A G

2006)

US. v. Perez, 2006 WL

2993390 (8th Cir. 2006) D 100 bed >»; Ai; &

U.S. v. Crow, 2006 WL

2987304 (8th Cir. 2006) 0 a bad dD; 4] &

U.S. v. Garcia-Sanchez,

2006 WL 2946826 (8th D 108 W D A G

Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Ware, 2006 WL

2873245 (8th Cir. 2006) d on at sad 2 A .

US. v. McCorkle, 2006

_ WL 2742323 (8th Cir. F 57-71 64 W D A G

2006)

eer

Case Name/Citation

Crime

Guide-

Rev’d

Rev'd:

U.S. v. Mosner, 2006 WL

2661156 (8th Cir. 2006)

US. v. Stewart, 462 F.3d

960 (8th Cir. 2006)

oO; =

US. v. Huber, 462 F.3d

945 (8th Cir. 2006)

U.S. v. Straughan, 462

F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2006)

360-life

U.S. v. Moore, 2006 WL

2561243

U.S. v. Kiertzner, 460

F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2006)

Sina; oo! 8s

aQ;raQar a; ata

U.S. v. Plumman, 188

Fed. Appx. 529 (8th Cir.

2006)

?-life

U.S. v. Winston, 456 F.3d

861 (8th Cir. 2006)

veri

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Gov’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Senten elow Pt d | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Foote, 454 F.3d

787 (8th Cir, 2006) D {210-262 240 «it Mud Rue Fe.

US. v. Oslund, 453 F.3d : ;

1048 (8th Cir. 2006) F,T ?-life life W D A G

U.S. v. Adams, 451 F.3d

471 (8th Cir, 2006) ° ae ~ | * 1. ee 8

US. v. Gregg, 451 F.3d

930 (8th Cir, 2006) O 135-168 135 W D A G

U.S. v. Mathis, 451 F.3d

939 (8th Cir, 2006) . a4 2-6 ea 5 8

USS. v. Lee, 451 F.3d 914

(8th Cir, 2006) D,F | 346-411 346 W D A G

U.S. v. Dunlap, 452 F.3d

747 (8th Cir. 2006) ° sed bad ” A S

U.S. v. Gladney, 184

Fed. Appx. 586 (8th Cir. D 188-235 188 W D A G

2006)

ePrbl

Who If

Type | Guide- Within | App.: Won? | Rev’d:

of lines Above | Gov’t | Rev’d | Goy’t/ | Procd/

Case Name/Citation Crime | Range | Sentence} Below | Deft | Affd | Deft | Subst

U.S. v. Walker, 2006 WL

1596805 (8th Cir. 2006) 5 “ ha -) 8 1%

U.S. v. Snider, 2006 WL

1594429 (8th Cir. 2006) » 186 bed AE Wes tin

U.S. v. Nuno-Alvarez, 182

Fed.Appx. 630 (8th Cir. D 87 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Espinoza-Naranjo, 42 +

182 Fed. Appx. 610 (8th 1,D 77-96 time W D A G

Cir. 2006) served

USS. v. Erby, 180

Fed. Appx. 637 (8th Cir. F 40 W D A G

2006)

U.S. v. Cazares-Gonzales,

182 Fed.Appx 603 (8th I 46-57

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.