AMENDMENT 741
Section 1B1.1 is amended by redesignating subdivisions (a) through (h) as (1) through (8), respectively; in subdivision (4) (as so redesignated) by striking "(a)" and inserting "(1)", and by striking "(c)" and inserting "(3)";
by striking the first paragraph as follows:
"Except as specifically directed, the provisions of this manual are to be applied in the following order:",
and inserting the following:
"(a) The court shall determine the kinds of sentence and the guideline range as set forth in the guidelines (see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)) by applying the provisions of this manual in the following order, except as specifically directed:";
by redesignating subdivision (i) as subsection (b) and, in that subsection, by striking "Refer to" and inserting "The court shall then consider"; by striking "to" before "any"; and by adding at the end "See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5)."; and
by adding at the end the following:
"(c) The court shall then consider the applicable factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) taken as a whole. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).".
The Commentary to §1B1.1 is amended by adding at the end the following:
"Background: The court must impose a sentence ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary,’ to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Subsections (a), (b), and (c) are structured to reflect the three-step process used in determining the particular sentence to be imposed. If, after step (c), the court imposes a sentence that is outside the guidelines framework, such a sentence is considered a ‘variance’. See Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 2200-03 (2008) (describing within-range sentences and departures as ‘sentences imposed under the framework set out in the Guidelines’).".
Reason for Amendment: This amendment amends §1B1.1 (Application Instructions) in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and subsequent case law.
As explained more fully in Chapter One, Part A, Subpart 2 (Continuing Evolution and Role of the Guidelines) of the Guidelines Manual, a district court is required to properly calculate and consider the guidelines when sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4); Booker, 543 U.S. at 264 ("The district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must . . . take them into account when sentencing."); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-48 (2007) (stating that a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007) ("As a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.").
After determining the guideline range, the district court should refer to the Guidelines Manual and consider whether the case warrants a departure. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5). "‘Departure’ is a term of art under the Guidelines and refers only to non-Guidelines sentences imposed under the framework set out in the Guidelines." Irizarry v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 2202 (2008). A "variance" – i.e., a sentence outside the guideline range other than as provided for in the Guidelines Manual – is considered by the court only after departures have been considered.
Most circuits agree on a three-step approach, including the consideration of departure provisions in the Guidelines Manual, in determining the sentence to be imposed. See United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194, 203-04 (1st Cir. 2006) (court must consider "any applicable departures"); United States v. Selioutsky, 409 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2005) (court must consider "available departure authority"); United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834, 838 (3d Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (departures "remain an important part of sentencing even after Booker"); United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 525 (5th Cir. 2006) ("Post-Booker case law recognizes three types of sentences under the new advisory sentencing regime: (1) a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range; (2) a sentence that includes an upward or downward departure as allowed by the Guidelines, which sentence is also a Guideline sentence; or (3) a non-Guideline sentence which is either higher or lower than the relevant Guideline sentence." (internal footnote and citation omitted)); United States v. McBride, 434 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2006) (district court "still required to consider . . . whether a Chapter 5 departure is appropriate"); United States v. Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d 622, 631 (8th Cir. 2006) ("the district court must decide if a traditional departure is appropriate", and after that must consider a variance (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Robertson, 568 F.3d 1203, 1210 (10th Cir. 2009) (district courts must continue to apply departures); United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that "the application of the guidelines is not complete until the departures, if any, that are warranted are appropriately considered"). But see United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 423, 426 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that departures are "obsolete").
The amendment resolves the circuit conflict and adopts the three-step approach followed by a majority of circuits in determining the sentence to be imposed. The amendment restructures §1B1.1 into three subsections to reflect the three-step process. As amended, subsection (a) addresses how to apply the provisions in the Guidelines Manual to properly determine the kinds of sentence and the guideline range. Subsection (b) addresses the need to consider the policy statements and commentary to determine whether a departure is warranted. Subsection (c) addresses the need to consider the applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) taken as a whole in determining the appropriate sentence. The amendment also adds background commentary referring to the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and defining the term "variance" as "a sentence that is outside the guidelines framework".
Effective Date: The effective date of this amendment is November 1, 2010.