Claiborne v. United States
Claiborne pleaded guilty to two federal drug offenses and was sentenced to fifteen months in prison. Because the federal sentencing guidelines provided for a sentence in the range of 37 to 46 months in prison, the United States appealed the sentence as an unreasonable downward variance from the lower end of the suggested range. In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the federal criminal sentencing guidelines were constitutional only if they were advisory, rather than mandatory.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the sentence, holding that a 60 percent variance from the low end of guidelines, was "an extraordinary variance that must be supported by comparably extraordinary circumstances" not present in Claiborne's case.
Questions Presented:
In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this Court ruled that the mandatory use of the United States Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on any fact required to enhance a criminal sentence. The Court remedied the error by making the Guidelines “effectively advisory” and, therefore, just one of many factors a court considers in choosing a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court also prescribed appellate review of sentences for“reasonableness” in light of all the section 3553(a) factors and the reasons for the sentence as stated by the sentencing judge. The model of review on which Bookerbased this “reasonableness” standard paid “substantial deference” to a sentencing judge’s discretionary choices in departing from the guidelines range, as held in Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81(1996). In light of the foregoing, these issues are presented:
1. Does an appellate court make the Sentencing Guidelines effectively mandatory by granting a presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range in reviewing a sentence outside that range, rather than granting deference to the sentencing judge’s decision in light of all the 3553(a) factors?
2. Does granting a presumption of reasonableness to the guidelines range deny the substantial deference granted a district court’s discretionary sentencing decision under the “reasonableness” standard chosen in Booker?
