<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION &#187; Booker</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/tag/booker/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:44:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF FEDERAL SENTENCING?</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/08/31/what-is-the-purpose-of-federal-sentencing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/08/31/what-is-the-purpose-of-federal-sentencing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appropriate punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[correctional treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tapia v. U.S.: Need for Rehabilitation not Proper Factor in Determining Sentence

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The concept of penal rehabilitation began at the end of the 19th century in this country. Historically criminal sentences in America have been imposed for four reasons: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Although rehabilitation has been a subject of controversy as a reason for punishment, the State of Texas adopted it as a reason to punish through criminal sentencing. The U.S. Congress, however, has long dispensed with rehabilitation as a basis for criminal sentencing in federal courts. This was evidenced by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tapia v. United States, which declared that a federal district court judge abused his discretion by lengthening a defendant’s sentence in order to fulfill rehabilitation objectives.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/08/31/what-is-the-purpose-of-federal-sentencing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5C12-SAFETY VALVE-ANOTHER FAILED SENTENCING REFORM EFFORT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/08/5c12-safety-valve-another-failed-sentencing-reform-effort/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/08/5c12-safety-valve-another-failed-sentencing-reform-effort/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAMM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory minimum sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penal statute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety valve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unjust sentences]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Mandatory Minimums, Safety Valve Encourage Snitches, Promote False Testimony, Prevent Just Sentences

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Anytime a new penal statute uses the term “reform” you can take to it the bank that the result will produce just the opposite; that its objective to correct a perceived and politically charged threat will, more than likely than not, harvest a new crop of worse injustices.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/03/08/5c12-safety-valve-another-failed-sentencing-reform-effort/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SENTENCING DEPARTURES SINCE BOOKER</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/21/sentencing-departures-since-booker/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/21/sentencing-departures-since-booker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[downward departure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defense Lawyers Must Prepare for Federal Sentencing 

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The United States Supreme Court in 1996 held that federal district court judges had discretion to depart from the recommendations of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. See: Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 91, 98 (1996).

Some of these judges – many of whom were placed on the federal bench during the 12-year presidential reign of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush because they shared the politically conservative views of judges like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas – viewed Koon as a judicial license to enhance criminal sentences as part of the Republicans’ “war on crime.” See: United States v. Weisser, 417 F.3d 336, 346 (2nd Cir. 2005) [reversal of a district court judge’s sentence based upon multiple enhancements including a 13-level increase in the offense level and a three-level increase in the criminal history level].]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/02/21/sentencing-departures-since-booker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JUDICIAL WAR OVER CRACK SENTENCING COMES TO AN END</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/30/judicial-war-over-crack-sentencing-comes-to-an-end/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/30/judicial-war-over-crack-sentencing-comes-to-an-end/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal drugs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Moore and Spears: District Courts have Discretion to Reject the 100:1 Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Last October we posted a blog entitled “The Judicial Wars Invoked by Crack Sentencing” (Oct. 24, 2008). The blog focused on a judicial tiff between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of James Eric Moore. We are pleased to report that the Supreme Court has finally put this issue to bed in two cases this Term.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/30/judicial-war-over-crack-sentencing-comes-to-an-end/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE JUDICIAL WARS INVOKED BY CRACK SENTENCING</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=72</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Supreme Court: Federal Judges Have Discretion at Sentencing

By Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a federal district court judge must consider each of the factors prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing an appropriate criminal sentence. The § 3553 factors are:

“Nature and circumstances of the offense” and defendant’s “history and characteristics.” Id., at (a)(1). Under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence the sentencing judge is limited to those facts (1) “reflected in the jury verdict,” (2) admitted by the defendant, (3) contained in defendant’s guilty plea, or (4) reflect prior convictions. See: Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) [facts affecting sentence must be found by a jury]. 
The general purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act. Id., at (a)(2). The purposes of this Act are to have a sentence “(A) reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (d) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner …” 
The types of sentences available. Id., at (a)(3). 
The policy statements of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Id., at (a)(5). 
The need to avoid sentencing disparities between defendants convicted of similar conduct. Id., at (a)(6). 
The need to provide restitution to victims. Id., at (a)(7). 
The applicable sentence range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Id., at (a)(4). ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/25/the-judicial-wars-invoked-by-crack-sentencing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FEDERAL SENTENCING: DISCRETION MAKES A COMBACK</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/08/28/federal-sentencing-discretion-makes-a-comback/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/08/28/federal-sentencing-discretion-makes-a-comback/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Crimes Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal Appeals Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=50</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following Booker, Kimbrough, Rita and Gall; District Courts Exercising Power to Sentence as Deemed Appropriate, Considering Case-Specific Factors, § 3553(a)

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Senior Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Before 1984, criminal sentencing in federal courts was heavily criticized because of the disparate sentences imposed for similar conduct and because of the uncertainty as to the length of time offenders would actually serve in prison. But Congress changed all that with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Act was designed to produce a more even-handed determinate sentencing scheme. To accomplish this legislative objective, the Act imposed an absolute duty on federal district court judges to consider each of the seven sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), required federal judges to accept the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, and abolished the federal parole system as well. The end result of the Act, however, quickly proved to be even more draconian than hodgepodge sentencing practices it had replaced. Federal prison sentences grew longer because of the mandatory Guidelines, and because of the abolition of parole, longer stays in federal prison became the order of the day.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/08/28/federal-sentencing-discretion-makes-a-comback/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

