Moore v. United States, 555 U.S. 1 (2008)

James Eric Moore was convicted of possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). During sentencing, the presentence report indicated that Moore's sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was between 151 to 188 months due to the quantity of crack cocaine involved. Moore requested a sentence below the Guidelines range, citing the disparity in treatment between crack and powder cocaine established by the Guidelines and referencing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker. However, the District Court denied this request, stating that it was bound to apply the law as it stood, emphasizing that any change to the Guidelines was a matter for Congress, not the judiciary. Consequently, Moore was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release. Following his conviction, Moore appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed both his conviction and sentence. The appellate court supported the District Court's stance, asserting that neither Booker nor 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) permitted district courts to disregard the crack-to-powder cocaine ratio mandated by Congress. Moore subsequently filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. While this petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kimbrough v. United States, which allowed judges to consider the disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine offenses when applying § 3553(a). After the Supreme Court granted Moore's petition and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Kimbrough, the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed its previous ruling without new briefing. The court concluded that the District Court was presumed to be aware of its discretion to vary downward based on the crack cocaine guidelines but chose not to exercise that discretion. Moore then filed another petition for certiorari, arguing that the Eighth Circuit mischaracterized the District Court's intent, which he contended indicated a belief that it lacked discretion to reject the Guidelines' ratio. The United States agreed with Moore's assessment, leading to further scrutiny of the case by the Supreme Court.

Whether a district court has the discretion to consider the disparity between the sentencing guidelines for crack and powder cocaine when imposing a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.