Sentencing guidelines

Sterling Bancorp, Inc. Enters Into Plea Agreement with DOJ; Resolves DOJ Investigation of the Company Relating to the Advantage Loan Program; Revises Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2022 Unaudited Financial Results

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Based on the estimated financial impact of the Plea Agreement, the Company reported a net loss of $(14.2) million for the full year 2022 and $(18.4) million for the fourth quarter of 2022.

Key Points: 
  • Based on the estimated financial impact of the Plea Agreement, the Company reported a net loss of $(14.2) million for the full year 2022 and $(18.4) million for the fourth quarter of 2022.
  • The resulting material revisions to the Company’s financial highlights for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2022 are below.
  • The Company agreed as part of the Plea Agreement not to seek a tax deduction for the restitution payment.
  • An archived version of the webcast will be available in the same location shortly after the live call has ended.

NCLA Comment Encourages Sentencing Commission to Alleviate Harms Inflicted by Judicial Deference

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, March 14, 2023

NCLA sees the amendments as a first step to alleviating harm that Stinson deference inflicts.

Key Points: 
  • NCLA sees the amendments as a first step to alleviating harm that Stinson deference inflicts.
  • But the Commission does not have to wait for that day to amend the Sentencing Guidelines so that Stinson deference need not be invoked.
  • NCLA released the following statement:
    “Prior to the Sentencing Guidelines’ promulgation, sentencing practices varied wildly, which led to significant disparities between similarly situated individuals and conduct.
  • The Commission has the power to delete Guidelines language that triggers Stinson deference.

NCLA Amicus Brief Urges Supreme Court to Put an End to Deference to USSG Commentary

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, October 20, 2022

NCLAs amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to grant Mr. Mosess petition and to put an end to the unconstitutional doctrine of Stinson deference once and for all.

Key Points: 
  • NCLAs amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to grant Mr. Mosess petition and to put an end to the unconstitutional doctrine of Stinson deference once and for all.
  • Alternatively, at the very least, NCLA argues that the Supreme Court must rule that Stinson deference is unconstitutional whenever it would result in an increased criminal sentence, as it did for Mr. Moses.
  • Following the Supreme Courts 1993 decision in Stinson v. United States, the courts of appeals began to give nearly dispositive weight to the U.S.
  • NCLA argues that lenity is a traditional tool of statutory construction that the courts must apply before resorting to deference.

NCLA Amicus Brief Encourages Fifth Circuit to Reject Judicial Deference to Sentencing Commission

Retrieved on: 
Monday, October 3, 2022

NCLA argues that existing Fifth Circuit precedent, which the panel was bound to apply in its vacated decision, follows flawed reasoning and causes courts to defer reflexively to United States Sentencing Commission commentary, even when Sentencing Guidelines are unambiguous.

Key Points: 
  • NCLA argues that existing Fifth Circuit precedent, which the panel was bound to apply in its vacated decision, follows flawed reasoning and causes courts to defer reflexively to United States Sentencing Commission commentary, even when Sentencing Guidelines are unambiguous.
  • The Fifth Circuit should stop according Stinson deference, which endangers individual liberty, compromises the independent judiciary, and institutes judicial bias.
  • A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Stinson v. United States, commands federal judges to defer to the commentary of the U.S.
  • The Fifth Circuit should join several of its sister circuits in declaring Stinson deference a thing of the past.

NCLA Amicus Brief Backs Cert Petition Challenging Deference to Sentencing Guidelines Commentary

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Under the current deference regime, district courts in seven circuits systematically violate the due-process rights of thousands of criminal defendants by applying Stinson deference to increase the Sentencing Guideline range beyond what Congress approved.

Key Points: 
  • Under the current deference regime, district courts in seven circuits systematically violate the due-process rights of thousands of criminal defendants by applying Stinson deference to increase the Sentencing Guideline range beyond what Congress approved.
  • Following the Courts decision in Stinson, however, the circuit courts of appeals began to give disproportionate weight to the Commissions commentary whenever the Sentencing Guidelines plain text was at all ambiguous.
  • petition on behalf of client Marcus Broadway asking the Court to consider this issue in Marcus Broadway v. United States .
  • Mr. Wynns petition presents the Supreme Court a critical opportunity to clarify once and for all that courts do not owe deference to Commission commentary that expands the Sentencing Guidelines.

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Eliminate or Limit Judicial Deference to Sentencing Commission

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, April 7, 2021

The growing circuit split over how the Supreme Courts 2019 decision inKisor v. Wilkie limited Stinson deference has led to unjust inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide, including in Mr. Broadways case.

Key Points: 
  • The growing circuit split over how the Supreme Courts 2019 decision inKisor v. Wilkie limited Stinson deference has led to unjust inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide, including in Mr. Broadways case.
  • In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that courts must defer to the Commissions commentary interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines.
  • NCLA contends that the application of Stinson deference in Mr. Broadways sentencing violated the rule of lenity, which instructs courts to apply the more lenient reading of an ambiguous criminal provision.
  • NCLA argues that its time for the Court to overturn Stinson deferenceor at least clarify that lenity takes priority over deference and that the Sentencing Commission cannot use its commentary to amend the Sentencing Guidelines.

NCLA Tells U.S. Supreme Court Why Deference to Sentencing Commission Violates Constitution

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, December 16, 2020

Throughout his case, Mr. Broadway has maintained that the application of Stinson deference to brand and punish him as a career offender under the Guidelines violated the rule of lenity and Supreme Court precedent.

Key Points: 
  • Throughout his case, Mr. Broadway has maintained that the application of Stinson deference to brand and punish him as a career offender under the Guidelines violated the rule of lenity and Supreme Court precedent.
  • The Broadway case deserves the Supreme Courts attention because the circuits are currently split on whether lenity precedes Stinson deference.
  • A judges deferring to one of the parties before the court exhibits a bias that violates due process too.
  • Its time for the Court to clarify that lenity takes priority over deference and that the Sentencing Commission cannot use its commentary to amend the Sentencing Guidelines.

Victory! NCLA Applauds Third Circ. for Rejecting Deference to US Sentencing Guidelines Commentary

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Sentencing Commissions commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines when sentencing a criminal defendant.

Key Points: 
  • Sentencing Commissions commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines when sentencing a criminal defendant.
  • Stinson deference can also unjustly force people to spend more time in prison than Congress required, which raises serious due-process and separation-of-powers concerns.
  • The Third Circuit is now part of a growing chorus of circuits correcting an erroneous and unconstitutional application of judicial deference.
  • NCLA applauds the Third Circuit for todays ruling and especially commends Judge Bibass noteworthy concurrence.

NCLA Amicus Briefs in Third and Tenth Circuits Challenge Deference to U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Commentary

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, April 22, 2020

These cases present an opportunity for the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the Tenth and Third Circuits of California to join a growing list of circuits correcting an erroneous and unconstitutional application of deference to the Sentencing Commission.

Key Points: 
  • These cases present an opportunity for the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the Tenth and Third Circuits of California to join a growing list of circuits correcting an erroneous and unconstitutional application of deference to the Sentencing Commission.
  • It also raises serious due-process and separation-of-powers concerns when it causes courts to mandate judicial bias against a defendant, instead of lenity toward him.
  • In both Lovato and Nasir, the courts deferred to the Sentencing Commissions interpretation of sentencing guidelines and increased the length of each mans prison sentence.
  • Where the Circuits were once unified in reflexively granting such deference, two Circuits have now rethought that approachthe DC Circuit in United States v. Winstead (D.C. Cir.

New Book By Lorna Graham Puts Legal System On Trial

Retrieved on: 
Friday, May 17, 2019

She offers many insights on the nation's legal system and makes a strong case for legal reform, based on years of painstaking research, interviews, and firsthand knowledge of the events.

Key Points: 
  • She offers many insights on the nation's legal system and makes a strong case for legal reform, based on years of painstaking research, interviews, and firsthand knowledge of the events.
  • Graham puts the justice system on trial and re-litigates the shocking case that left us without a hero.
  • How we have a loophole-filled legal system when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
  • This book is sure to ignite a national conversation regarding prosecutorial misconduct and fake news.