<?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; Crack Sentencing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/tag/crack-sentencing/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>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>
	</channel>
</rss>

