Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus

Amicus

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by maryroseeng

More info:

Published by: maryroseeng on May 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 08-30445UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.JOHN MICHAEL FOX,Defendant-Appellee.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BRIEF
AMICUS CURIAE 
OF THENINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL AND COMMUNITY DEFENDERSIN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE
Daniel J. Broderick Federal Defender, E. D. CaliforniaDavid M. Porter Assistant Federal Defender 801 I Street, 3 Floor 
rd
Sacramento, California 95814(916) 498-5700Attorneys for 
 Amicus Curiae
Case: 08-30445 11/09/2009 Page: 1 of 37 ID: 7124902 DktEntry: 64
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSP
AGE
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE........................................................1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......................................................................1ARGUMENT...................................................................................................3I.Certain Defendants in the Crack Sentencing Context Are ParticularlyDeserving of Below-Guidelines Sentences............................................3A.The Reduced Crack/Cocaine Ratios Remain ExcessivelyDisparate.....................................................................................3B.Many of These Defendants Are Low-Level, Non-ViolentOffenders.....................................................................................7C.Mr. Fox Is Particularly Deserving of a Below-GuidelinesSentence......................................................................................7II.Unde
 Hicks
, Crack Resentencings Have Proceeded Smoothly, andDistrict Courts Have Imposed Below-Guidelines Sentences Only in aLimited Number of Cases Involving Particularly DeservingDefendants...........................................................................................10III.U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 Should Be Considered Advisory in § 3582(c)(2)Resentencings Under the Sixth Amendment and the Supreme Court’sRemedial Holding in
United States v. Booker 
.....................................11IV.The Policy Statement in § 1B1.10 Purporting to Make the RevisedGuidelines Range Mandatory Is Not Legally Binding.........................17A.The Policy Statement in § 1B1.10 Was Enacted Without Proper  Notice and Comment................................................................17B.Under the Sentencing Reform Act, Policy Statements Cannot BeBinding......................................................................................24
Case: 08-30445 11/09/2009 Page: 2 of 37 ID: 7124902 DktEntry: 64
 
ii
1.Congress Did Not Intend for Policy Statements to BeBinding............................................................................242. Neither § 3582(c) nor 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) Provides theSentencing Commission with the Authority to IssueBinding Policy Statements..............................................26CONCLUSION..............................................................................................28BRIEF FORMAT CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO CIRCUIT RULE 32-1...........................................................................29
Case: 08-30445 11/09/2009 Page: 3 of 37 ID: 7124902 DktEntry: 64

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->