Back To School

United States v. South, No. 04-CR-508 (JBW), 2007 WL 3010632 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2007)

South pled guilty to a two count indictment charging robbery and possession of a firearm.  Based on a total offense level of 24 and a criminal history category of III, South's advisory Guidelines range for the first count was 63 to 78 months imprisonment.  Combined with the 5 year mandatory minimum for the second count, which had to run consecutively, the minimum advisory Guidelines sentence was 123 months imprisonment.  But the court imposed a sentence of 81 months, a significant variance from the advisory Guidelines range.  Why?  South was a mere 12 credits shy of a college degree.  The court felt that an 81 month sentence was sufficient to accomplish the purposes of punishment as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) but also allow South to accomplish the rehabilitative goal of achieving his college degree.

Non-Guidelines Sentence Of Probation Affirmed As Reasonable

United States v. Hawkins, No. 05-4913-cr (2d Cir. April 30, 2006) (found here)

Hawkins pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud, and faced an advisory Guidelines range of 12-18 months.  At sentencing, the district court (Judge Weinstein) sentenced Hawkins to three years probation.  In doing so, the district court: (1) downwardly departed based on a finding of extraordinary rehabilitation; and (2) alternatively found that a sentence of three years probation was an appropriate non-Guidelines sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.  Thus, the Second Circuit found that any error in the district court's downward departure analysis was harmless (to the extent that there was error) because the district court also indicated that the sentence imposed was supported as a non-Guidelines sentence by the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a):

We find that the district court properly discharged its statutory duty to consider the Section 3553(a) factors and explain its reasons for imposing a non-Guidelines sentence of probation.  The resulting sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.