Jump To Navigation
Gall and Kimbrough Practice Tip
After Booker, Courts of Appeals rejected numerous below-guideline sentences as “unreasonable” simply because they did not believe that the mitigating circumstances on which the district courts relied were significant enough to support large “variances” from the bottom of the guideline ranges.  That is likely to change with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. –, 2007 WL 4292116 (Dec. 10, 2007).  In that case, the Court “reject[ed] an appellate rule that requires ‘extraordinary’ circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range.”  The Court also “reject[ed] the use of a rigid mathematical formula that uses the percentage of a departure as the standard for determining the strength of the justifications required for a specific sentence.”  The Court made it clear that Courts of Appeals are not to impose their own judgment on what the appropriate sentence should be in any particular case.  So long as the record demonstrates that district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and supported its sentence with a rationale that is supported by the record, the sentence should stand.  It is therefore now more important than ever for defense attorneys to provide a rationale to the sentencing court.

The Court also makes clear that any attempt to give special weight to the sentencing guideline is contrary to its holding in Booker, which means the guidelines are advisory.  See also, Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 2007 WL 4292040 (Dec. 10, 2007) (allowing judges to impose lower sentences based on the unfairness of the 100 to 1 crack cocaine ratio).  Both cases, decided the same day make it clear that the district courts are only required to give “some weight” to the advisory guidelines, as they are to the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Kimbrough goes one step beyond doing away with any special weight appellate courts have attached to the guidelines.  It holds that a district court’s judgment that a particular sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” is entitled to great weight, even if the district court’s judgment is based on its disagreement with the policies behind the applicable guideline.  Of particular note is the Court’s holding that the district court in Kimbrough had properly imposed a below-guideline sentence to avoid the unwarranted disparity a guideline sentence would create between the defendant in that case, who was convicted on crack cocaine charges, and defendants convicted of powder cocaine offenses.  Kimbrough gives defense attorneys license to think creatively about how guideline sentences themselves create “unwarranted disparities.”  It is now entirely possible to obtain a lower non-guideline sentence by arguing that a particular guideline sentence would create unwarranted disparities with sentences imposed in similar state cases.  For example, the extremely harsh guidelines for simply downloading child pornography from the internet may be particularly vulnerable to attack after Kimbrough.

We believe that as a result of Kimbrough and Gall the pendulum has shifted dramatically back to where judges have more discretion than they have ever had since pre-guideline days in fashioning an appropriate sentence in a particular case.  As such we believe that with our background, experience and knowledge of federal sentencing and prison matters, we can be more valuable than ever in assisting counsel and their clients in obtaining the lowest possible sentence and if it is one of incarceration to be served at the best place possible, under terms and conditions that will enable one to be released at the earliest possible opportunity.
For a no-obligation discussion of a particular case, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

Media

  • Listen to Alan Ellis
    interviewed on Federal Prisons
    on "Legally Speaking" WGN-
    The Superstation-Chicago
  • Watch Alan Ellis
    On ABC News
    "Special Edition"
  • See the CNBC
    article that quotes
    Alan Ellis on The
    Best Places to Go
    to Prison

If you would like our help, start here:

NOTE: Labels in bold are required.

Contact Information
  1. disclaimer.

Office Locations

California Office
1299 Fourth St, Suite 202
San Rafael, CA 94901
Phone 415.256.9775
Fax 415.256.9772
Email Me

New York Office
501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 514
New York, NY 10017
Phone 212.252.9775
Fax 212.382.3610
Email Me

China Office
Longan Law Firm, 20/F, Tower B
CICG International Plaza
333 North Caoxi Road
Shanghai, 200030, China
Phone 415.256.9775
Email Me