Supreme Court hears arguments on sentencing guidelines News
Supreme Court hears arguments on sentencing guidelines

The US Supreme Court [official webiste] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] on Tuesday in Dean v. United States [SCOTUSblog materials]. The court must determine whether its decision in Pepper v. United States [opinion, PDF] limits the discretion of district courts in considering mandatory consecutive sentences for defendants convicted of firearms offenses under 18 USC § 924(C) [text]. This statute requires that a various mandatory minimum sentences must be imposed for defendants convicted under the statute for crimes of violence with a firearm. Petitioner argued that there is no language within the statute that prohibits a judge from using their discretion to reduce the portion of the sentence for crimes of violence. Petitioner argued that when considering parsimony guidelines and other factors, there is nothing that should limit the court in determining the appropriate sentence and that the purpose of 924(C) is to ensure a separate and consecutive punishment is conferred for the nature of that crime. Petitioner argued that such a punishment could be reduced significantly, even to potentially one additional day, and it would satisfy the 924(C) requirement. Further, that if Congress meant to prevent such circumvention they would have written the law to do so. Respondent in return argued that a stance that would allow for one-day sentences to meet the requirements of 924(C) would completely diminish the law and make it useless and unnecessary. Furthermore, Respondent argued that 924(C) removed the power of the court to look to the aggregate of the sentence in circumstances under 924(C) and diminish individual sentences to tailor the aggregate length of the sentence. Under circumstances that fall within 924(C), the court must focus on the predicate offense and then the 924(C) sentencing separately.