Navigate

  •  
Case Summaries for the '07 season of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta

NY v. Lopez Torres

Knight v. Commissioner

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. U.S.

Wright v. Van Patten

Arave v. Hoffman

Kimbrough v. U.S.

Gall v. U.S.

Watson v. U.S.

Logan v. U.S.

CSX Transportation v. Georgia State Board of Equalization

Board of Ed. of N.Y. v. Tom F.

Allen v. Siebert

  •  

GALL v. UNITED STATES

On appeal from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

What happened?

Mr. Gall was a college drug dealer. In his second year at the University of Iowa, he started distributing ecstasy from an established group of ecstasy dealers. At the time, he used ecstasy, cocaine, and marijuana. A few months in, he quit using ecstasy. After about seven months, he decided to quit selling drugs. In 2002, he graduated from the University of Iowa and moved to Arizona.

In Arizona, he worked for $18 an hour as master carpenter. But the law caught up with him. Federal agents questioned him in Arizona, and he confessed. In April 2004, he was indicted in Iowa for participating in a conspiracy to distribute ecstasy, cocaine and marijuana. He turned himself to agents in Iowa.

The conspiracy had lasted from May 1996 through October 2002. His part in the conspiracy was small compared to the other people involved; he only distributed ecstasy for those seven months in 2000. He had no significant criminal history. He didn't organize, lead or manage the conspiracy. He didn't use any weapons during the conspiracy. While he was a user of various drugs before he sold ecstasy, he stopped using drugs.

While he waited in Iowa for his hearing, he started his own business subcontracting installation of windows and doors. He made about $2,000 a month in profits his first year.

What did the District Court do?
Ultimately, Mr. Gall didn't fight the government charges. He entered into a plea agreement that explained that he was responsible for distributing at least 2,500 grams of ecstasy, although he did not necessarily sell those drugs himself. In May 2005, he had a sentencing hearing in front of the District Court Judge. The prosecutor recommended a sentencing range of 2.5 to 3 years, which followed the recommendation of the probation officer. The prosecutor took the position that the Sentencing Guidelines are appropriate and should be followed.

Mr. Gall presented letters from his parents, his relatives, his fiancée, his neighbors, and representatives of the firms that did business with him that praised his character and work ethnic. Mr. Gall presented the other evidence that showed his law-abiding life during the five years since he had stopped selling ecstasy. Even the prosecutor admitted that two of the other drug dealers had been sentenced to 2 1/2 years to nearly 3 years - neither of whom had voluntarily withdrawn from the conspiracy.

The District Court Judge had some mercy: he sentenced Mr. Gall to three years of probation.

How did he get to the Supreme Court?
The prosecutor appealed to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, who reversed the District Court. The Court of Appeals didn't like it that the District Court had departed from the sentencing guidelines so completely. It believed that the District Court's reason for the downward departure was not proportional - that is, the District Court's justification wasn't extraordinary enough to excuse what the Court of Appeals calls "a 100% downward variance."

Mr. Gall appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court.

What is this case about?
This case is about how district courts apply the Sentencing Guidelines, and how appellate courts review district courts’ sentences.

What are the Sentencing Guidelines?
If you're so inclined to read it, here's a more an overview of the Sentencing Guidelines: The Sentencing Guidelines summary at CLARINET.WOODWINDS.COM. These are a reoccurring theme in recent cases.

For this case, there are two key things to know about the Sentencing Guidelines:

The Sentencing Guidelines are a congressionally established method to determine a range of sentences that are appropriate for every legal violation of federal laws in the United States. While every criminal law has a maximum sentence, and some a criminal laws have minimum sentences, the Sentencing Guidelines give district courts a range of sentences for all criminal defendants.

The Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory, even though Congress intended the Guidelines to be mandatory. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court decided that the provisions making the Guidelines mandatory violated the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

Who won?
Mr. Gall won.

How did he manage to win it?
This case has lots of moving parts. The Court decided 3 things:

  1. How much does the District Court need to respect the Sentencing Guidelines?
  2. How much does the Court of Appeals need to respect the District Court’s decision?
  3. Did the Court of Appeals respect the District Courts decision enough?

The Short answer to these questions could be described in non-legal terms as:

  1. serious respect
  2. a lot of respect, and
  3. not enough respect.

So, how much respect do the Sentencing Guidelines deserve?
The Court wants to use the Guidelines. The Guidelines are the result of hard work (analytical study) into what makes an appropriate sentence. It seems a shame to waste the effort and allow district courts to completely ignore the Guidelines. Besides, if the courts completely ignore the Sentencing Guidelines, drug dealers in Iowa might get dramatically different sentences than drug dealers in California.

The Supreme Court gives the Guidelines respect by requiring district courts to go through a process:

The theory seems to be that all this process will give the guidelines serious respect by the district courts.

So how much respect do the district courts deserve in their sentencing?
The technical term is “abuse of discretion.” So long as the process is followed, the courts of appeals should respect the district courts’ decisions, unless the district courts make a serious error in judgment of some kind. That could be best described as a lot of respect. The courts of appeals can’t change the outcome of the case just because they might have decided differently.

Yes, the courts of appeals can take into account the amount outside the Guidelines a given sentence is, but the courts of appeals can not rely on a rigid or mechanical formula to overturn the "well considered opinion" of the district courts. And they can’t resort to “proportionality” tests to overturn the district courts either.

Did the Eighth Circuit give sufficient respect to the district court in this case?
No. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the District Court could reduce the sentence well outside the Guidelines. The emphasis is on the District Court's impression of Mr. Gall. Mr. Gall walked away from a profitable drug ring. Mr. Gall’s self-rehabilitated. And Mr. Gall was not like the two other defendants that had done pretty much the same thing but who had stayed in the conspiracy to the end.

In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was just too hard on the District Court. The Eighth Circuit cited the right rule, but applied the rule incorrectly. The Eighth Circuit didn’t give enough respect to the District Court’s position, which the Supreme Court decided wasn’t so far off that the Court of Appeals should have reversed it.

Any other words of wisdom?
Justice Scalia agreed with the majority. He believes that the appeals courts shouldn’t be reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a given sentence.

Justice Souter also concurred with the majority. He didn’t agree with Booker, but, he does not hold a grudge. He thinks that Congress ought to rewrite the mandatory Guidelines law so that it is constitutional.

Justice Thomas disagreed. Go read Kimbrough.

Justice Alito also disagreed. His dissent is based on two interrelated complaints. First, Booker decided that juries, not judges, must find the facts that lead to sentencing decisions. The decision in this case is not mandated by Booker and the Sixth Amendment. Second, he believes that the Court's approach simply allows the district courts to ignore the guidelines.

Most of Alito’s dissent covers why he thinks that the Court of Appeals gets it right, and why he thinks that the District Court pretty much ignored the Sentencing Guidelines. But, his opinion didn’t carry the day. Maybe next time.

What’s the big idea?
Come on – Mr. Gall was the most honest (and reformed) drug dealer you’ll ever meet. He’s about as likely to go back to drug dealing as Dennis Kucinich would take the 20 pound steak challenge at Texas Roadhouse and win. If the District Court got this one wrong, when would the District Court ever get it right? What sentence, outside the Guidelines, could the District Court have picked that would have been ok using the kind of proportionality examination that the Eighth Circuit used in this case? It would have been a tough to find a sentence outside the Guidelines that would have been proportional if this sentence was not.

Discretion is just that – the ability to do what you want. For the most part, the district courts can now (so long as they follow the procedure) do what they want.

What is the quotable quote?
[W]hile the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and the recommended Guidelines range is surely relevant, courts of appeals must review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

Wow, these Sentencing Guidelines sound fascinating – where can I get a copy?
The Guidelines can be found at the United States Sentencing Commission website. CLARINET.WOODWINDS.COM does warn you - the Guidelines are 600+ pages long (including the appendices).

Next Case (more drug dealers and sentencing guidelines)
© Clarinet Esq. | valid xhtml 1.0 | Design by wfiedler adapted by Clarinet Esq.