Federal Judiciary

"I dissent from the majority's overly deferential review of the district court's variance, on general policy grounds, from the Sentencing Guidelines . . . ."



"None of the district court's stated grounds for its variance were adequately supported by objective criteria.  Consequently, the sentence should be vacated and the case remanded."



"In the case before us, 'closer review' is warranted because the district court 'varie[d] from the Guidelines based solely on the judge's view that the Guidelines range fail[ed] to properly reflect [18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) considerations . . . .  Although its contours remain imprecise, 'closer review' must amount to more than the majority's excessive deference to the district court's decision, which risks a regression of the sentencing process to the 'greatest deficiencies of the pre-Guidelines regime,' namely 'its failure to provide for review of the decisions of sentencing judges and its failure to ensure that the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion was informed by authoritative criteria and principles.'"



"Closer review is warranted where, as happened in this [case], a district court implements a policy decision applicable to a wide class of offenders that is at odds with the Sentencing Commission."



"Closer review is also appropriate because the judge's sentence, in addition to being in tension with the Sentencing Commission, was not grounded in the district court's 'discrete institutional strengths.' . . .  The district court's competence wanes as it moves from a case's particularities evaluated through the framework of 3553(a) to overarching considerations of criminal jurisprudence."



"Appellate courts must not abdicate their responsibility to ensure that sentences are based on sound judgment, lest we return to the 'shameful' lack of parity . . . which the Guidelines sought to remedy."