Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007)
Primary Holding
The United States Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, allowing district courts to consider the disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses when determining an appropriate sentence, and a sentence outside the Guidelines range is not per se unreasonable if it is based on such considerations.
In the case of Kimbrough v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that judges can consider the unfair differences in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine when deciding how long someone should go to prison. This matters because it allows judges to give fairer sentences based on the individual situation, rather than strictly following outdated rules. For consumers, this case is relevant if they or someone they know is facing drug charges, as it means there’s a chance for more lenient sentencing based on the specifics of the case.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In September 2004, Derrick Kimbrough was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on four charges: conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine, possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Kimbrough pleaded guilty to all charges, which exposed him to a statutory sentencing range of 15 years to life in prison—10 years to life for the drug offenses and an additional consecutive 5 years to life for the firearm offense. The District Court calculated Kimbrough's sentence using the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, determining that he was accountable for 56 grams of crack cocaine and 92.1 grams of powder cocaine, resulting in a base offense level of 32. During the sentencing process, the District Court increased Kimbrough's offense level to 34 due to his false testimony at a co-defendant's trial. With a criminal history category of II, this led to a Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months for the drug charges. However, the court also considered the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses, which had been a point of contention in prior cases. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals later held that a sentence outside the Guidelines range based solely on a disagreement with this disparity was per se unreasonable, prompting Kimbrough to seek further review. The case reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari after Kimbrough challenged the appellate court's ruling. The Supreme Court's decision addressed whether the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses could be a valid consideration for a district judge when determining an appropriate sentence under the now-advisory Sentencing Guidelines established in United States v. Booker. The Court ultimately concluded that the Guidelines are advisory and that judges may consider the disparity in sentencing when determining if a within-Guidelines sentence is excessive in light of the objectives of sentencing.
Whether a sentence outside the guidelines range is per se unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- October 2, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Ginsburg
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Federal Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional as applied in a manner that requires judges to find facts by a preponderance of the evidence that increase a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum, violating the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007)
Consumer LostFederal courts of appeals may presume that a sentence imposed within a properly calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range is a reasonable sentence when reviewing federal sentences for unreasonableness.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007)
Consumer WonCourts of appeals must review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Federal Sentencing Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and a sentence imposed by a district judge is presumed reasonable if it is within the Guidelines range.
Salinas v. United States, 547 U.S. 188 (2006)
Consumer WonA prior conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance does not qualify as a "controlled substance offense" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as it does not involve intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.