United States v. Wilson (350 F. Supp. 2d 910, 2005)

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION GIVING GREAT WEIGHT TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN DETERMINING APPROPRIATE SENTENCES

CASSELL, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its decision in United States v. Booker, finding certain provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, promulgated pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, unconstitutional. The Court first held that the Guidelines violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because they require judges to find facts which in turn increase a defendant’s sentence beyond what could be imposed based solely on the jury’s verdict. In the second part of the decision, the Court considered whether the unconstitutional portions of the Guidelines, could be severed and the rest of the statutory scheme preserved. The Court held that by severing the two provisions in the Act that make the Guidelines mandatory, the rest of the sentencing scheme could be preserved. Specifically, the Court- held that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), were “incompatible with today’s constitutional holding.” The former provision stated that courts “shall impose a sentence ... within the range” established by the Guidelines. The latter provision mandated a de novo standard of reviéw — a standard which, according to the Court, “depends upon the Guidelines’ mandatory nature.” “So modified,” the Court continue