Claiborne, Mario v. U.S. (06/04/2007)

Questions presented: (1) Was the district court's choice of below-Guidelines sentencing reasonable? (2) In making that determination, is it consistent with U.S. v. Booker to require that a sentence which constitutes a substantial variance from the Guidelines be justified by extraordinary circumstances?

BY HILARY MASELL OSWALD, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Mario Claiborne probably never imagined his routine arrests on drug charges would lead him to the Supreme Court. But so they did.

In May 2003, Claiborne was arrested in St. Louis for attempting to sell less than a quarter of a gram of cocaine base - also called crack cocaine - to an undercover police officer. Six months later, as police approached to investigate what appeared to be a drug deal, Claiborne fled through a nearby house and tossed a plastic baggie that contained more than five grams of crack cocaine.

Claiborne was charged with and pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base during the first incident and possessing cocaine base during the second.

On March 28, 2005, Claiborne, then 21-years-old, appeared before a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for sentencing. Although the Federal Sentencing Guidelines suggested Claiborne be sentenced to prison for 37 to 46 months, the district judge ordered the first-time offender to serve 15 months in prison—60 percent lower than the low end of the guidelines' range.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were enacted by Congress in the mid-1980s to ensure relative consistency in sentencing offenders convicted of federal crimes. The guidelines determine a sentence based primarily on two factors: the facts of the crime which gives the judge the "offense level" and the defendant's criminal history. The result is a range (in months) of appropriate prison time.

These guidelines were mandatory until January 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Booker that the guidelines were unconstitutional because they required judges to consider evidence in sentencing that the jury had not held beyond a reasonable doubt. This practice violated defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, the Court held, but the problem could be fixed by making the guidelines advisory. Judges must still "consider guidelines ranges" under a general requirement of "reasonableness."

Booker also established a new appellate review standard: Before Booker, federal law limited review on appeal, which reinforced the guidelines' compulsory nature. However, post-Booker, appeals courts review sentences for "reasonableness."

The ruling in Booker gives federal judges more discretion in sentencing, thereby opening the door for the sentence in Claiborne's case.

During the sentencing hearing, the trial judge in Claiborne's case noted for the record that the guidelines, while "instructive," were just advisory. Then she addressed Claiborne:

"I can't figure out if you were just unlucky or if you're stupid," she said. "I hope you are not stupid, because if you are, you're going to do this again. It really does disturb me when I see someone of your age in a federal courtroom about to go to prison."

Just prior to issuing the 15-month prison sentence, the judge called the low end of the guidelines' range - 7 months - "excessive," considering factors like Claiborne's age, his lack of criminal history and the small amount of drugs involved.

She added, "I come to the conclusion that a 37-month sentence would be tantamount to throwing you away."

The government, calling the sentence unreasonable, appealed the sentence to the 8th Circuit, which reversed and ordered new sentencing.

In its written opinion, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the guidelines take into account mitigating factors like a defendant's criminal history and age, and because they are "the product of years of study," the sentencing range provided by the guidelines is "presumed reasonable."

"We conclude that the sixty percent reduction granted to Claiborne was an extraordinary variance that is not supported by comparably extraordinary circumstances," the three-page opinion says.

But the court did say that a sentence outside the range could be found reasonable as long as the judge "offers appropriate justification" proportional to the difference between the guidelines' range and the actual sentence.

In rulings since Booker, five federal appeals courts have agreed with the 8th Circuit and ruled that a sentence within the guidelines' range is reasonable on appellate review; four other appeals courts have disagreed.

Claiborne filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that the 8th Circuit's ruling effectively reinstated the mandatory nature of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. If the guidelines' range is presumed reasonable, why would a district judge issue sentences outside those guidelines?

On April 27, 2006, the 8th Circuit denied Claiborne's petition for rehearing.

In the petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court, Claiborne's attorneys argue that instead of following Booker's ruling that appellate courts should evaluate criminal sentences in light of a full range of factors - defendant's age, criminal history, danger to the public, for example - the 8th Circuit's ruling assumes that the guidelines establish reasonable sentences.

Like all federal district judges, the judge in Claiborne's case had a duty to impose a sentence "sufficient but not greater than necessary," the petition says, quoting from the federal sentencing statutes.

Furthermore, the judge clearly explained her reasoning, Claiborne's attorneys argue, which the 8th Circuit ignored in its ruling.

The attorneys then offer another possible explanation for the judge's departure from the guidelines' range: a disparity between the guidelines' suggested range for crimes involving crack cocaine and the range suggested for crimes involving cocaine powder.

If Claiborne had been convicted of distribution crimes involving 5.23 grams of cocaine powder, the sentencing guidelines would have recommended 10 to 16 months in prison, making his 15-month sentence unexceptional.

"The appellate court, which had no opportunity to observe, much less question, Claiborne, presumes the proper range of sentence falls within the guidelines range," the petition says.

The appellate court ignores the district court judge's "greater personal experience in sentencing," opting instead for a "mathematical exercise to declare the proportional force or strength of the justification the district court must muster to overcome the guidelines calculation," the petition adds.

On Nov. 3, the Supreme Court accepted review in the case. It also accepted review in a similar sentencing guidelines case, Rita v. U.S.

While the Court will examine whether a sentence below the guidelines is presumed reasonable in Claiborne's case, in Rita, it will decide whether a sentence within the range should be presumed reasonable.

On May 30, 2007, Claiborne was killed in a car robbery incident in St. Louis, and the following week, on June 4, the Court mooted the 8th Circuit's opinion because of his death.

The next day, Solicitor General Paul Clement asked the Court to review a new Sentencing Guidelines case, Beal v. U.S., which raises the same issue as Claiborne.

“The status of reasonableness review is perhaps the most pressing legal issue facing federal criminal justice today,” Clement argued in the filing, noting that “the federal criminal justice system would greatly benefit from this Court’s consideration of the merits of this case on an expedited basis. If the Court wishes to render a decision this Term, the parties have agreed to a proposed schedule for expedited briefing that would permit the Court to do so.”