文档介绍：: .
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argument
4 next in case 06-6330, Kimbrough versus United States.
5 Mr. Nachmanoff.
6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL NACHMANOFF
7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
8 MR. NACHMANOFF: Mr. Chief Justice, and may
9 it please the Court:
10 Derrick Kimbrough's case is about what a
11 district court may consider when imposing sentence in
12 conformity with Section 3553(a).
13 That statute directs sentencing courts to do
14 exactly what Judge Jackson did in this case. He
15 properly calculated and considered the advisory
16 guideline range, the Sentencing Commission's reports,
17 Mr. Kimbrough's personal history and background, and the
18 offense itself, as directed by the statute. He then made
19 case-specific findings to impose an appropriate
20 sentence, and he did not make any categorical
21 determinations.
22 The Fourth Circuit reversed, applying a
23 per se rule prohibiting disagreement with the crack
24 cocaine guideline. The government, on the other hand,
25 argues that Congress has implicitly directed sentencing
3
Alderson Reporting CompanyOfficial - Subject to Final Review
1 courts to adhere to the crack guidelines.
2 Both of these positions are wrong.
3 With respect to the Fourth Circuit, the
4 Fourth Circuit applied a rigid rule that prohibited any
5 disagreement with the crack guideline, which is
6 determined solely by drug type and quantity. They then
7 prohibited the imposition of any sentence ou