Home 
Federal Criminal System Federal Sentencing System
Federal Criminal System Federal Sentencing System | The Federal Sentencing System |
The federal sentencing system is very complicated. In 1984 the Congress
passed the Federal Sentencing Act, which provided a complicated set of
formulas resulting in a sentencing guideline for the United States
District Court when faced with a defendant who has either pled guilty
or been found guilty at trial. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines
provide mathematical formulas for determining a category for each
defendant. In turn, the category sets forth the range of months that
the guidelines recommend. Certain factors permit additions or
subtractions from the range of sentencing if they are factually
present. Finally, there are reasons set forth in the sentencing code to
permit a United States District Judge to depart from the sentencing
guidelines, either downward or upward, when determining the sentence
for a particular defendant.Blakely v. Washington In 2004, the United States Supreme court ruled that judges must adhere to the U.S Constitution's provision regarding the right to a trial by jury when increasing the length of a sentence. A judge cannot unilaterally determine that the crimes committed were particularly egregious, and thereby cannot unilaterally increase the sentence dictated by the Federal sentencing guidelines. Since this court ruling, there have been many additional developments in federal criminal sentencing procedure. United States v. Booker In 2005, the Supreme Court held that judicial determinations of fact not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant to increase sentences under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. As a remedy, the Court excised 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), which created a presumption in favor of the guideline range. The Court made § 3553(a) the governing sentencing law, thus rendering the guidelines "advisory," and prescribed a unitary standard of review -- "unreasonableness" with regard to § 3553(a) -- for all sentences within or outside the guideline range. Eighteen months later, seven courts of appeals ruled the guidelines are presumptively reasonable. We have significant experience handling cases for clients charged in federal court. We have the skill, experience, and resources necessary to fight the virtually unlimited resources available to federal prosecutors. Often federal cases are more difficult to win. Generally federal prosecutors do not bring charges unless they have a solid case. Our federal criminal defense lawyer understands what our clients are up against. When it is in our client's best interest, we negotiate with federal prosecutor to reduce charges and avoid the harsh mandatory sentences. We may be able to successfully argue your case resulting in an acceptable disposition. Contact Vladimir Gagic at his Phoenix or Scottsdale offices today. Tags: arizona criminal defense lawyer phoenix criminal defense attorney mesa arizona criminal defense lawyer east mesa criminal defense scottsdale arizona criminal defense lawyer arizona criminal defense criminal defense dui felony misdemeanor dwi driving while intoxicated driving under the influence domestic violence homicide robbery burglary and theft assault and aggravated assault post-conviction relief homicide forgery credit card fraud weapons gun offenses juvenile cases drug offenses federal firearms offenses crimes against the person sexual abuse child pornography property crimes fraud money laundering immigration crimes conspiracy and attempt mesa arizona phoenix arizona east valley arizona scottsdale arizona tempe arizona tucson arizona flagstaff arizona glendale arizona prescott arizona peoria arizona chandler arizona gilbert arizona fountain hills arizona paradise valley arizona vladimir gagic maricopa county |
