<?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; FEDERAL SENTENCING</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/tag/federal-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>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>SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CRACK-POWDER COCAINES 713 AMENDMENT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/26/supreme-court-clarifies-crack-powder-cocaines-713-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/26/supreme-court-clarifies-crack-powder-cocaines-713-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEDERAL SENTENCING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentence reduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal Crack Sentence Reductions: Defendants Sentenced Pursuant to 11(c)(1)(C) Agreements Eligible for 3582(c)(2) Relief

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 2007 the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued a retroactive amendment, Amendment 713, to the Sentencing Guidelines designed to eliminate the sentencing disparities in crack cocaine and powder cocaine cases. The amendment became effective in March 2008, and promptly triggered an outbreak of conflicting appellate court decisions, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on several occasions and to restore judicial order (here and here). This past term the Court was once again was forced to confront another issue spun off by Amendment 713: whether the amendment could be retroactively applied in cases where a defendant entered into a plea agreement with the Government for a specific sentence. The Court, in Freeman v. United States, answered that question in the affirmative, although in a plurality decision.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/26/supreme-court-clarifies-crack-powder-cocaines-713-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</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>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>

