id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-22847	Papa, Jeff; Kashman, Chris	An Introduction to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines	2018	20	.pdf	application/pdf	8044	436	62	AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES 363 the Court had long recognized that not every fact bearing on a defendant’s punishment need be charged, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.62 She noted that the Court had refrained from establishing a bright-line rule for deciding that certain facts must be treated as an element of the offense despite a legislature’s choice not to do so.63 Justice O’Connor claimed that the Majority opinion was unsupported by existing case law and had little basis in the Constitution.64 She also warned that the decision in Apprendi would lead to an unsettling effect in sentencing that would “unleash a flood of petitions by convicted defendants seeking to invalidate their sentences in whole or in part” based on this decision.65 Justice O’Connor was correct in that prior U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence had allowed sentencing similar to that which Apprendi had received under New Jersey law. The Court also reiterated the deference due the trial courts as they impose sentences after reviewing the Guidelines.103 The trial court had sentenced Gall to three years of probation, even though the Guidelines called for a minimum sentence of thirty months in prison.104 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a sentence outside the Guidelines must be supported by “extraordinary” circumstances, which it did not find in this case.105 The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, stating that while a trial court judge must seriously consider the Guidelines and explain any departure in sufficient detail, appellate review of sentencing under Booker is to be limited to determining whether the sentence was reasonable.106 Reasonableness is to be determined using an abuse of discretion standard and appellate courts may not require a finding of extraordinary circumstances.107 The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeals should have reviewed the case under an abuse of discretion standard and should have given due deference to the District Court’s “reasoned and reasonable decision” in this case.108	cache/inlawrev-22847.pdf	txt/inlawrev-22847.txt