About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

87 Tul. L. Rev. 1311 (2012-2013)

handle is hein.journals/tulr87 and id is 1377 raw text is: Reasons? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Reasons: Why United States District Courts Should Be Required To Explain 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Resentencing Decisions Paul E. Shelton* A particular area offederal sentencing that remains problematic in the era ofSentencing Guideles is resentencing Whenever the Sentencing Guidelines are amended convicted defendants whose 'guidelne angesare lowerd by the United States Sentencing Commission can move for a reduction in their sentence under 18 US. C § 3582(c)(2). However distict courts can deny motions for a sentence reduction. Disrict court rulings are reviewed under an abuse of dscrtion standard and am rawly given a thoughtful explanation, leaving pisoners with no reliefand no explanation. This Comment examines the problems that exist with dhstict courts'failure to explain thei ruligs dunng § 3582(c)(2) sentence-modification proceedngs. Specifically this Comment discusses how the failure to explain rusentencig decisions hinders meaningful appellate review; decreases the public trust in the cnninal justice system, and obstructs the Sentencing Comrmissions ability to revise the Sentencig Guidelines. Additionally this Comment describes a model for what explanations fom district courts should look like and how to require courts to provide one This Comment concludes by suggesting that if district courts adequately explained their rulings during § 3582(c)(2) sentence-modification proceedings, each of the problems discussed herein would be alleviated and the number of § 3582(c)(2) motions would decrease over time, lessening the burden on the judiciary andprosecutos. I. INTRODUCTION. ............................... .....1 312 II. COMPARING ORIGINAL SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS WITH § 3582(c)(2) SENTENCE-MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS...........1314 A. OngnalSentencing. ....................... 1314 B. 18 US.C 3582(c)(2) Sentence-Modification Proceedings............................ 1316 III. HARMS CAUSED BY DISTRICT COURTS' FAILURE To EXPLAIN THEIR RULINGS ON 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) MOTIONS FOR A REDUCED SENTENCE .............. .....1320 A. MeaningfulAppellate Review......... ....... 1320 B. Public Concerns with the Cninal Justice System........1322 C Revishg the Sentenchg Guidelines........ ..... 1324 * 0 2013 Paul E. Shelton. J.D. candidate 2013, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2010, Northwestern State University of Louisiana. The author would like to thank Professor Herb Larson for his guidance; Peter Black and Betty Marak for their inspiration; the members and staff of the ThlaneLawReviewfor their editing expertise and diligence; and Ginny and his family for their love and support. 1311

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most