In Booker v. United States,1 the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutional and that sentencing courts are required to consider various factors identified by Congress in determining an appropriate sentence in each case. In the wake of Booker, defense counsel were hopeful that district judges would impose more moderate sentences when allowed to consider their clients' history and characteristics and other individualized considerations.2
Five years ago, this column addressed the potential impact of Booker and its progeny on sentencing in federal tax cases, noting that preliminary data suggested that district judges were imposing non-guidelines sentences with greater frequency.3 As reflected in the Sentencing Commission's most recent annual report, this trend has largely continued: The majority of the 605 defendants sentenced for criminal tax violations during the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2012, received sentences below the applicable guidelines range.4 This compares favorably to statistics from the pre-Booker era.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
