Alan Vinegrad

October 14, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, a partner at Covington & Burling, and Gretchen Hoff Varner, an associate at the firm, write that recent decisions by district courts within the Second Circuit demonstrate that judges are taking full advantage of the new, discretionary sentencing regime for white-collar crimes, using their experience and judgment in determining what price an individual defendant should pay for his or her crime. In particular, district judges are issuing non-guideline sentences in cases where an extraordinarily severe guideline sentence is principally driven by the loss amount.

By Alan Vinegrad and Gretchen Hoff Varner

13 minute read

July 06, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, a partner at Covington & Burling, and Jonathan Sack, a principal at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg, write about the anticipated impact of the Blakely decision with regard to sentencing guidelines.

By Alan Vinegrad And Jonathan Sack

12 minute read

March 02, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and a partner at Covington & Burling, and Michelle Kalka, an associate at the firm, write that changes being considered include a provision that would make it easier for judges to sentence certain defendants convicted of drug offenses to substance abuse treatment rather than to prison.

By Alan Vinegrad and Michelle Kalka

12 minute read

October 17, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and a partner at Covington & Burling, and Douglas Bloom, an associate at the firm, write that the Second Circuit's recent sentencing decisions do not represent a retreat from the principle that district courts have an institutional advantage in determining what a "reasonable" sentence is in a particular case.

By Alan Vinegrad and Douglas Bloom

12 minute read

April 21, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Alan Vinegrad

11 minute read

January 13, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and a partner at Covington & Burling, and Douglas Bloom, an associate at the firm, write that the federal sentencing landscape has changed, with a notable increase in below-the-range sentences. At the same time, however, sentencing procedure has remained largely unchanged.

By Alan Vinegrad and Douglas Bloom

13 minute read

April 17, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, a partner at Covington & Burling, and Douglas Bloom, an associate at the firm, write that in a series of recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that in establishing "reasonableness" review of sentences, its 2005 Booker decision restored the "substantial deference" that the Court decreed, over a decade ago, was owed sentencing judges.

By Alan Vinegrad and Douglas Bloom

16 minute read

June 16, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and a partner at Covington & Burling, and Douglas Bloom, an associate at the firm, write that statistics reveal that, rather than simply enabling judges to temper unduly harsh sentences, Booker has also provided judges an opportunity to impose harsher sentences when compelled by the facts concerning a particular offense, or offender.

By Alan Vinegrad and Douglas Bloom

13 minute read

March 06, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Alan Vinegrad

10 minute read

December 17, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Alan Vinegrad, a partner at Covington & Burling, and Douglas Bloom, an associate at the firm, write that earlier this year, the Second Circuit issued seemingly divergent opinions on the scope of post-Booker appellate sentencing review. In one, the court "confirm[ed] the broad deference that this Circuit has afforded the sentencing discretion of the district courts." In another, the court undertook a searching review of the trial record before ultimately concluding that the sentences were both procedurally unsound and substantively unreasonable. Recently, in its en banc decision in United States v. Cavera and subsequent opinion in United States v. Adelson, the Second Circuit reconciled these positions. In doing so, it set clear roles for sentencing judges and the appellate panels that review their work.

By Alan Vinegrad and Douglas Bloom

15 minute read