Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein To Make First Supreme Court Appearance In Sentencing Case, Even As Rumors Continue To Swirl Of Potential Firing

by Ifrah PLLC
Contact

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be arguing before the Supreme Court today for the first time in his nearly thirty-year government career even as rumors abound that Donald Trump is talking about firing him to cut off investigations into his administration’s Russia ties.

Although the United States is usually represented before the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General, it is not uncommon for Attorneys General and certain other senior Justice Department officials to take on at least one oral argument during their term in office.  And though this is Rosenstein’s first foray into Supreme Court advocacy, he is by no means a green hand in the courtroom.  Rosenstein has served as a government prosecutor for his entire career, trying numerous cases and arguing numerous appellate cases before federal circuit court.  Rosenstein is also a particularly well-respected member of the federal bar—he spent a dozen years the United States Attorney for Maryland, being appointed by George W. Bush and reappointed by Barack Obama—a rare instance of bipartisan agreement for a prestigious political appointment position.

The case, Chavez-Mena v. United States, addresses important questions about how carefully a judge must explain her reasoning when a change in sentencing law requires the modification of a sentence.  This issue comes up frequently—particularly in drug cases, as legislators and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have come to reconsider a long history of overly harsh Sentencing Guidelines.  Under federal law, when a Sentencing Guideline is revised downwards, people sentenced under the original Guideline can seek to be re-sentenced to take advantage of the new, more lenient provisions.  According to the Guidelines themselves, this reduction should be proportional—that is to say, a revised sentence should fall in the same relative to the applicable Guideline as the original one did.

That is exactly what happened to Chavez-Mena, who originally pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in 2013.  When a judge sentences a convicted defendant, he is required to make a series of findings and announce his reasoning in open court, so that appellate courts can review his decision and ensure that the judge’s reasoning was proper.  Although a judge who applies the relevant Sentencing Guidelines is presumed to be reasonable, a judge still must give a detailed statement of reasons explaining why a given sentence was appropriate in a specific case.  Based upon the details of the plea—including, most notably, the quantity of methamphetamine—the Sentencing Guidelines recommended a range between 135 and 168 months.  The judge, after providing his findings and reasons on the record, sentenced Chavez-Mena to the low end of this range—135 months.

Then, in 2014, the Sentencing Guidelines were amended, lowering the Guidelines for Chavez-Mena’s conviction to 108 to 135 months.  Chavez-Mena applied to have his sentence reduced to account for this new Guidelines range, expecting—as is typical—that the judge would locate his sentence in the same place under the new range, leading to a low-end, 108-month sentence.  The government consented to the reduction.  But although the judge granted a reduction, he did not grant a proportional one to the low end of the new range; instead, he sentenced Chavez-Mena to a higher, 114-month sentence with no hearing and virtually no explanation.  The only reasoning was contained in a boilerplate form that said that the court had “taken into account” the relevant legal principles.  This did not explain what had changed in the intervening period to render a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range inappropriate.

The Tenth Circuit appellate court upheld the sentence, finding that although the judge was required to consider certain factors on modifying Chavez-Mena’s sentence, there was no requirement to explain how those factors led to the new sentence.  Although the court acknowledged the importance of enabling appellate review of improper decisions, it found that it was appropriate to presume that a judge acted properly unless there was a reason to believe otherwise.

Rosenstein will, of course, be arguing to uphold the 114-month sentence and, more generally, to not require federal judges to explain themselves on re-sentencing.  According to the government, the modification of Chavez-Mena’s sentence was not even a true resentencing but, rather, a “congressional act of lenity” where a defendant’s usual sentencing rights do not apply.  Because the law at issue is intended to create a simpler procedure for modifying sentences, the law does not expressly require that a court explain its reasoning when reducing a sentence and, according to the United States, it would be improper to transfer that proposition from an initial sentencing to a sentencing reduction proceeding.

This is a questionable—and even dangerous—proposition.  Judges necessarily have extremely broad discretion over sentencing and the only meaningful way to rein them in is by ensuring that every sentence is justified and based upon proper reasons. There is no good reason why a judge who chooses not to honor the intent of Congress and the Sentencing Commission in granting a full reduction of a sentence should be able to do so with no explanation or oversight.  It also is always slightly concerning to see the government fighting to uphold a sentence that is harsher than what prosecutors had originally advocated for.  However, it is unclear how many justices will elect to force district judges to devote more time and energy to the review of defendants who—like Chavez-Mena—are looking at a lengthy prison term either way.

There is, of course, another potentially interesting aspect to this argument: when high-level Justice Department officials choose to argue a case before the Supreme Court, they often do so near the end of their term, as a capstone on their term in office.  It is possible that Rosenstein has chosen to argue this case now—during his second year in office—because he has legitimate questions about how long it will be before he is fired.

As significant as this case could be for sentencings and resentencings of criminal defendants, it could be even more significant if it turns out to be Rosenstein’s valediction.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ifrah PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ifrah PLLC
Contact
more
less

Ifrah PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.