[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58564-58565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24201]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts
AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In July 2011, the Commission published a notice of possible
policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2012. See 76 FR
45007 (July 17, 2011). After reviewing public comment received pursuant
to the notice of proposed priorities, the Commission has identified its
policy priorities for the upcoming amendment cycle and hereby gives
notice of these policy priorities.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Doherty, Office of Legislative
and Public Affairs, 202-502-4502.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Sentencing Commission is
an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States
Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy
statements for Federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a).
The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously
promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits
guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of
May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze
sentencing issues, including operation of the Federal sentencing
guidelines, the Commission has identified its policy priorities for the
amendment cycle ending May 1, 2012. The Commission recognizes, however,
that other factors, such as the enactment of any legislation requiring
Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work
on any or all of its identified priorities by the statutory deadline of
May 1, 2012. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on any
or all of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1,
2012.
As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following
priorities:
(1) Continuation of its work on statutory mandatory minimum
penalties, including (A) its study of and, pursuant to the directive in
section 4713 of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2009, Public Law 111-84, report to Congress on
statutory mandatory minimum penalties, including a review of the
operation of the ``safety valve'' provision at 18 U.S.C. 3553(e); and
(B) its study of and, pursuant to the directive in section 107(b) of
the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of
2010, Public Law 111-195, report to Congress regarding violations of
section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C.
287c(a)), sections 38, 39, and 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2778, 2779, and 2780), and the Trading with the Enemy Act (50
U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.).
(2) Continuation of its work on implementation of the directives in
section 1079A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, regarding securities fraud offenses
and fraud offenses relating to financial institutions or Federally
related mortgage loans; and implementation of any other crime
legislation enacted during the 111th or 112th Congress warranting a
Commission response.
(3) Continuation of its work with the congressional, executive, and
judicial branches of government, and other interested parties, to study
the manner in which United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and
subsequent Supreme Court decisions have affected Federal sentencing
practices, the appellate review of those practices, and the role of the
Federal sentencing guidelines. The Commission anticipates that it will
issue a report with respect to its findings, possibly including (A) An
evaluation of the impact of those decisions on the Federal sentencing
guideline system; (B) development of recommendations for legislation
regarding Federal sentencing policy; (C) an evaluation of the appellate
standard of review applicable to post-Booker Federal sentencing
decisions; and (D) possible consideration of amendments to the Federal
sentencing guidelines.
(4) Continuation of its multi-year review of Sec. 2D1.1 (Unlawful
Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including
Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or
Conspiracy) and possible consideration of amendments to the Federal
sentencing guidelines for drug offenses.
(5) Continuation of its review of child pornography offenses and
report to Congress as a result of such review. It is anticipated that
any such report would include (A) A review of the incidence of, and
reasons for, departures and variances from the guideline sentence; (B)
a compilation of studies on, and analysis of, recidivism by child
pornography offenders; and (C) possible recommendations to Congress on
any statutory changes that may be appropriate.
(6) Continuation of its multi-year study of the statutory and
guideline definitions of ``crime of violence'', ``aggravated felony'',
``violent felony'', and ``drug trafficking offense'', including (A)
Possible consideration of an amendment to specify the types of
documents to be considered under the ``categorical approach'', see
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); Shepard v. United States,
544 U.S. 13 (2005), for determining the applicability of guideline
enhancements; (B) an examination of relevant circuit conflicts
regarding whether any offense is categorically a ``crime of violence'',
``aggravated felony'', ``violent felony'', or ``drug trafficking
offense'' for purposes of triggering an enhanced sentence under certain
Federal statutes and guidelines; and (C) possible report to Congress
making recommendations on any statutory changes that may be appropriate
to relevant statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. 1326.
(7) Continuation of its review of departures within the guidelines,
including provisions in Parts H and K of Chapter Five of the Guidelines
Manual, and the extent to which pertinent statutory provisions
prohibit, discourage, or encourage certain factors as forming the basis
for departure from the guideline sentence.
(8) Continuation of its multi-year review of the guidelines and
their application to human rights offenses, including genocide under 18
U.S.C. 1091, war crimes under 18 U.S.C. 2441, torture and maiming to
commit torture under 18 U.S.C. 2340A and 114, respectively, and child
soldier offenses under 18 U.S.C. 2442, and possible promulgation of
guidelines or guideline amendments with respect to these offenses.
(9) Resolution of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission's
continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B)
and Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991), to resolve
conflicting interpretations of the guidelines by the Federal courts.
[[Page 58565]]
(10) Consideration of (A) Sec. 5K2.19 (Post-Sentencing
Rehabilitative Efforts) (Policy Statement) in light of Pepper v. United
States, 131 S.Ct. 1229 (March 2, 2011); (B) whether to provide a
specific reference for N-Benzylpiperazine (BZP) in the Drug Quantity
Table in Sec. 2D1.1; and (C) any other miscellaneous guideline
application issues coming to the Commission's attention from case law
and other sources.
Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and
Procedure 5.2.
Patti B. Saris,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2011-24201 Filed 9-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-40-P