FAC was fortunate to be able to send a board member to the National Seminar on Federal Sentencing. The seminar was an opportunity for criminal defense attorneys, judges and other stakeholders to get together and chime in on the state of federal sentences.

Below are the meeting notes from FAC’s attendance at the meeting. Thanks to Barb M. for preparing these:

Summary Notes for the

Twenty-Fifth National Seminar on Federal Sentencing

Sponsored by

The Tampa Bay Chapter of the Federal Bar Association

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Criminal Law Section of the Federal Bar Association

and

The Criminal Justice Section of the America Bar Association

 

A word of appreciation:  The registration fee was provided by the Florida Action Committee.  This was an excellent opportunity to hear from judges, public defenders, probation, legislative liaisons, bureau of prisons, and attorneys, all of whom provided insights, views, information and in some ways perspectives on how things can be improved.  The scope covered drug offenses, weapons charges and sex offenses.  I have made every effort to accurately summarize key points and to provide any resources where applicable.  In any circumstance where I have knowingly offered a personal aside, etc. It will appear in italics.

 

Plenary Session I: Federal Sentencing: A view from the Bench

Participants:

Honorable Paul Friedman, U.S. District Court District of Columbia

Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court, Southern district of Florida

Honorable Mary Scriven, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida

Honorable Carlos E. Mendoza, U.S, District Court, Middle District of Florida

Moderator: Morris ‘Sandy” Weinberg, Jr. Esq. of Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Tampa Florida

 

(Friedman) The session began with a quick overview of the timeline history of sentencing guidelines which came into existence in 1987. Judges have varying views on the value of guidelines, with 200 federal judges holding guidelines as unconstitutional, giving too much influence to prosecutors. There was one circumstance where a federal judge refused to sentence anyone, passing his cases to another judge for rulings. Many judges have only been on the bench since the guidelines came into existence and have no comparison experiences.  Booker, in 2005, did not actually give freedom but it did further allow for variances within the guidelines.  Some see the guidelines as providing boundaries under which a judge can rule according to circumstances.  Many judges  agree that if you adhere to the guidelines you won’t get reversed, which many judges want to avoid.

• Booker definitionL2005) In a split but majority ruling, the Court struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the Federal Guidelines range, along with the provision that deprived federal appeals courts of the power to review sentences imposed outside the Guidelines range. The Court instructed federal district judges to impose a sentence with reference to a wider range of sentencing factors set forth in the federal sentencing statute, and directed federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for “reasonableness,” which the Court left undefined.

(Middlebrooks) provided a different take in that his views of the past without the guidelines was not all that good. There were too many variables.  His view is that the guidelines act as an advisory starting point and can at least provide a baseline dialog.  He feels there is no obligation to stick with the guidelines solely and pointed out that the 11^th district had very few reversals.

(Scriven) is opposed to Booker (ruling) and doesn’t feel bound by guidelines. She sees little difference in the before and after results of the guidelines serving to provide the prosecution and defense as a means to be working together.  However if an ideologue exists on either side, guidelines are necessary. At the end of the day, a statement of reason must indicate a fair ruling.  Her greatest fear is that two men on the bus to Coleman (federal correction institute) will discuss similarities in their cases with very different rulings. There is a need for the reason as to why a sentence is given.

 

(Mendoza): He began by using the analogy that cases are like snowflakes in that differences are there. Guidelines are like channel buoys and the judge has to be able to consider variances.  If the guidelines are held to rigidly then the prosecutor is in full charge.  They are called ‘Guides’ for a reason and should be considered as such.

In summary, all the judges on the panel do not feel an absolute obligation to the guidelines.

(Scriven)- Within a district, some judges see little reason to deviate. Some will allow ‘dialogue ‘and others adhere strictly to guidelines making some judges’ rulings predictable on certain cases.

(Freidman): In reference to unwarranted disparity, he thought pornography was the worst. (I asked a question for clarification later) You can know what certain judges may feel based on prior cases; district vary; judges vary; pleas are considered; some are fast-tracked districts; enhancements vary among judges; guidelines are parameters but do not always achieve unwarranted disparity.

(Middlebrooks): when asked how unwarranted disparity can be achieved, his response was he was not sure as a sentencing judge doesn’t’ often have the ‘institutional knowledge’ one might assume.  Decisions are primarily based on the attorney’s presentation so judges are often reliant on the lawyers.

(Mendoza): When asked about peer pressure among the judges—as one who is a ‘newer-less experienced’  judge, you can feel isolated. Advice and sharing is rare.  Some defense attorneys can use that tactic to try and force a judge’s decision.  Out of respect, judges are reluctant to have ‘close’ conversations or hand out advice in the interest of fairness. Referenced the Conway case (unsure what this case is about and it never came out in the discussion)

 

A Statistic provided was that up to 50% are sentenced at or below guidelines as judge, pursuant, to Booker are ruling downward.

(Scriven): disputed this statistic. Often a downward sentence is motioned by the prosecutor.  Statistics are important but one needs to see the ‘what and why’ a sentence is below the guidelines and often such information is not available to the judge.

(Freidman): Cooperation counts. A judge is not allowed to say they agree with the defense attorney. They need information to be made available to them.  In certain categories it is more ‘uniform’ Referenced before Kimbrough, there were MANY downwards.

 Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that federal district judges have discretion to impose sentences outside the range dictated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack cocaine.

Yet another reference to Child Pornography was that Congress has directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to write in a certain way. (This could be important in our work to communicate with the USSC.)  Stated that in all cases a computer is used; also gave the number of images as examples of the ridiculousness of the CP enhancements used in guidelines. He commented it goes ‘on and on’.  Also the backgrounds of the defendants should be considered as important.  Fraud was also referenced as something that depends on variable information.

Question:  Outside of 5K1, what are best circumstances for an attorney to used 3552 factors?”

There are two ways that “cooperating” can result in a lower sentence. If a defendant cooperates before sentencing, the prosecutor can file a motion pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (also known as a “5K” motion). If a defendant cooperates after sentencing, the prosecutor can file a Rule 35 motion. “Cooperating” does not guarantee that a prosecutor will file a § 5K1.1 or Rule 35 motion. Before a prosecutor will file a motion, the cooperation must amount to “substantial assistance.”

 (Mendoza): It is like a hammer and nail relationship between the prosecution and the defense attorney relationship.  There is often the creation of where the prosecution has much control which is why downwards may be more likely. In regard to what you can do regarding the mitigating circumstance, it matters who enters a plea where multiple people are charged such as in a gang case. The more dangerous and culpable person should not get the greatest downward just because they enter a plea first.

** Point was made to try and NOT let the prosecutor FRAME the issue.  The defense needs to work early to circumvent the prosecution taking the upper hand.  Know your defendant—what they did while awaiting sentencing—did they volunteer, work and provide for their family? Etc.

Question:  what worked?

(Middlebrooks) –sentencing is a proceeding. A lawyer needs to not do all the talking; a judge likes to hear from the defendant and get some sense of the person.

Begin with the 3553 factors; there is a special interest in the protection of the public. A sentence should be not greater than necessary. Each case should be regarded by defense as a separate opportunity. Try to ally with the prosecution. In some case the prosecution meets with the defendant’s family.  So many factors to be considered.

For 3553 see : https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553

(Scriven): It is important to make available to the judge an open file to again reference 3553 factors: get prosecution on board and the judge needs to know the level of agreement.

Moderator: moved back to the defense memorandum:

(Freidman): Agreed that it is helpful to hear the client speak.  He/she can even read from a written statement, employee letters, education accomplishments and pursuits—all these variables count for something.

(Scriven): agreed to have prosecution on board and not only agree with probation. Judges want to know future behavioral expectations.  It doesn’t help to say you are new parent if you already have 6 children out of wedlock!  (Given as an example)  The Client needs to be engaged in the process and it is important that the family is there to support and guide back into society (re-entry) potential for success.

Moderator: Asked about defense memorandum- agreed with the previous points of hearing from client. Trials can be very different.  Defense attorneys needs to assure PSI is presented accurately and any errors needs to be corrected ASAP!

(Middlebrooks): Meets with the probation officer before sentencing. He sees their reports as carrying much weight.

(Freidman) also meets with probation.

(Scriven): doesn’t talk with probation without all parties present in order to assure transparency. Some details matter: i.e. misinformation details should not be in PSR and defense should move for a revision to reflect correctional information.

Moderator: Does Probation always recommend a post sentence?

(Freidman): Report and recommendation should again be used and privy to ALL.  Probation has a lot of credibility.

(Mendoza) agreed with Scriven as far as transparency goes to ensure accuracy of facts.  However he doesn’t ‘pick’ probation’s brain as they are only making a recommendation.

Question asked of Middlebrooks regarding a recent ruling: it was about a synthetic drug that has recently become very prevalent so it was necessary to determine with what drug this synthetic was most similar. Then 3553 factors were considered-again a sentence should be for the purpose as outlined in the courts but no greater than necessary.

(Scriven): It is a methodical process.

Comment was made from someone on the panel that mandatory minimums were the next frontier.  It was later specified that pornography was the NEXT frontier. Cooperation is helpful but it is to be considered within the culpability of the defendant.

(Referenced in the discussion of panel members) Ruling by Judge Frederick Block in the Eastern District of NY: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/25/frederic_block_federal_judge_speaks_out_against_collateral_consequences.html

Note this is a topic worthy of thorough review!

One of the judges on the panel, (did not note which one) also mentioned that child pornography was one charge that is or was referenced in the collateral consequences issue.

Scriven just commented yes!

Middlebrooks stated he did not like this decision.

Freidman: His initial reaction is to see how the 2^nd circuit reacts to this ruling and sees collateral consequences as a future big issue in line with mandatory minimums as it will become increasingly important in employment, licensing etc for the defendant .

He also referenced a national Inventory for collateral consequences as referenced in the ABA files.

http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/

This may see its way in the future.

Scriven commented that ALL consequences have collateral  attach to them but Freidman responded that there are 5000 collateral consequences noted in the report and there needs to be rational way to deal with these.

Mendoza referenced that a state can withhold adjudication; feds cannot. Again there is a wait and see as to what the 2^nd circuit will do (re: collateral consequences).

Question: What about use of risk assessments at time of sentencing?

Freidman noted these are primarily used by the probation officer and correctional system. They have been found to be effective in some categories of crime. Again the characteristics of a defendant and the ability to reintegrate into society are important factors.

Middlebrooks in reference to cp- expert witness testimony and the use of risk assessments, the risk of offending against a child is the only place he has frequently seen Risk Assessments used.

CP cases were reference by panel: Mendoza is experiencing a heavy caseload of CP and the ease of accessing and sharing and the ability to rack up a large number of images. Sees this as the next frontier!

Scriven; referenced she sees viewing as creating market.  A reference made to the ‘assumption of belief that a large percentage of ‘lookers’ are just not yet caught being a ’toucher’.

Freidman stated; This just NOT true! There are those who are overtly touchers and then those who have no evidence of touching.

Mendoza commented on the problem with enhancements as a computer is ALWAYS used ( so why should it be an enhancement?) . Guidelines are outdated in many ways.

Freidman noted that there are the real victim stories all with serious consequences, yet with mandatory minimums,  sentences are hugely disproportionate.

 

 

Plenary Session II update on Federal Sentencing Law and Policy

Panel:

Barry Boss Esq. Cozen O’Conner, Washington, D.C.  (A defense attorney)

Carter Burwell, Esq. Deputy Chief Counsel to Senator John Cornyn, committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Steven Chanenson, Professor of Law, Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova, Pennsylvania

Dan Goldberg, Esq. Chief of Staff, Office of legislative Affairs, U.S. Dept. Of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Moderator: James E Felman, Esq. Practicing Defense Attorney, Kynes, Markman and Felman, P.A. Tampa, FL

NOTE TO THE READER: This session was a very rapid and often detailed discussion among the panelists so the information is not as detailed as the previous summary.  I just captured various points in the discussion.

 

Discussion began by taking a look at the high level of policy and what can be done better!

Carter: There is some success in sentencing guidelines at the State level; there is a focus on moderating sentences and the function and value of rehabilitation. There are two issues: the first is the sentence itself. The second issue is seen as a problem—and that of recidivism. The Fair Sentencing Act of Congress looked at civil rights factoring in the faith groups, tea partiers, and law enforcement, the DOJ, taking a look at costs and the impact on recidivism.  The SMART  Sentencing Act needs to cut the 851 enhancements but there is a need to motivate the law and order folks. Senators such as Grassley, Cornyn, and Feinstein, have coalesced around new initiatives. He is ‘modestly hopefully optimistic.” The Senate Reform bill has passed the judiciary committee. The Bill possesses 5 and 10 year minimums but greatly expands judiciary discretion and contains safety valves.  It has a modest scope.  Efforts to focus mandatory sentencing where needed and avoid high sentences for non-violent, low-level drug offenders.  Also attempts to cut the 3 strikes provision.

Also discussed was retroactivity and Prison reforms that could provide for alternative settings such as house arrest, halfway houses, etc. There are 40 co-sponsors in the Senate.  It was noted that Senator Cotton is in favor of MORE incarceration so such reforms are not immune to opposition. Referenced Cornyn and Leahy and efforts with the president and Attorney General. Again efforts to address the low level nonviolent drug offender.  In 2013, AG Holder, with the SMART crime initiative allowed to go after serious federal offenders. Resources are finite. Some reduction in sentences since the 2012 are evident as there has been a reduction in drug cases.

If retroactivity process is passed, the reduction will be significant again for nonviolent low-level. Various data was provided on reduction percentages. (I did not capture these as they were being stated quite rapidly.)  Budget Office projections are also in the record.

Felman: an interesting statement in the discussion of changes that are needed; Equal justice depends an individualized justice.”

Rulings made at various intervals continued to show the seriousness of sentencing changes.

Chanenson: The memorandums are really significant on rulings. It is a real struggle to get votes in the legislature.  In 2015 they were still talking mandatory minimums form some charges such as domestic violence that result in death and terrorism issues. Such cases will be used to push the bill through but he added, any mandatory minimum will be problematic.  The Corrections Oversight Act was referenced.  Regarding Risk assessments and post sentencing are seen as a mixed bag. He is seeing a push toward different thinking regarding reduction in sentencing.  He also referenced Mary Price of the FAMM group. (Note Mary moderated one of the afternoon breakout sessions on Drug offenses.)

Much of what may go through is in the hand of the BOP.  He also made reference to the Judge Block collateral consequences ruling (see previous summary.)

Judge Block wrote a 50 page opinion with extensive footnotes. It was also stated that the PSI should contain the collateral consequences in full print.

Some circuits, such as the 2^nd, do allow consideration for collateral consequences.  This should be used as much as possible.  Culpability actors are also to be considered.

Felman: in a statement regarding the Future of Federal sentencing guidelines, a complete overhaul could be needed. Some circumstances are spelled out but there are others where the written guidelines are not spelled out.

The USSC would like a simpler system with fewer and wider rulings in an attempt to avoid uniformity.  It is possible some simplification could occur.

Carter: Cannot imagine congress tackling an overhaul or re write; in fact Congress is increasingly in favor of abolishing the USSC!!!!  Consensus is growing toward fundamental changes so that the current system does not put too much power in the hands of the prosecutors as prosecution is growingly adept at using this power.  Also referenced was that Sensenbrenner etc. was the first group to oppose reform. The Association of US prosecutors is opposed as well as they don’t want their ‘cheese’ taken away,”

Carter also referenced help needed from the Fed. Defense groups.

 

Concurrent Session: Child Pornography and Sex Offenses

Panel:

Parker Anderson U.S, Probation Officer, Middle District of Florida

Diane Dragan, Esq. Assistant Federal Defender Eastern District of Missouri

James Mandolfo, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Middle District of Florida

Michelle Smith Esq. Law office of Michelle P. Smith, P.A. Orlando Florida

Moderator: Keven T. Beck, Esq. Law Office of Kevin. Beck, Tampa Florida

 

The room contained about 50 people, half of whom were probation officers and the remainder were primarily federal defenders.  In response to a show of hands, all had experience with CP cases.  A goal of the discussion was not to only assist with understanding the guidelines but to guide probation.

Mandolfo: Statutory concerns exist with the guidelines. Usually a charge begins with what is called a ‘knock and talk’ where officials show up at the door to check your computers). The Term appeared on the PPT slide of ‘simple possession’ 18 U.S.C.2252 (a) (4) (B) where a sentence is no more than 10 years. If images have minors under the age of 12 it can be no more thatn20 years.  The Receipt of CP will distinguish more and IF images have been sent there is a 5 year minimum mandatory and 20 year maximum and higher of other offenses such as aggravated sexual abuse, etc. enter in.

Production had a 15 year minimum and maximum of 30 years. Any priors and distribution are a 25 year minimum and 50 year max.

Parker Anderson: indicated guidelines were straight forward.  The Base offenses of level 18 and additions are made for receipt and distribution.  A downward reduction is for conduct of no traffic or distribution and only applied after increased levels are first applied. In the 11^th circuit, if file sharing is charged and can be disputed, it can make a 2 level difference.

Distribution has multiple factors. If anything of value is exchanged, (i.e. money, more images, etc.) it is a peer to peer enticement and results in an upward level (referenced 262.2) if sadism or any penetration of a prepubescent child, number of images, use of computer, smart phones, (which apply in almost all cases) video equals 75 and the number of images can be counted twice if they appear on more than one device (i.e. cd, added drive, etc.) for distribution.

 

Dragan: The amendment requires PROOF that the defendant knowingly engaged in the distribution.  Another change is a 5 level enhancement for distribution if anything of value is charged. Enhancements occur also for types of material.  Also referenced 18 U.S.C. 3553 9(a) and Oct. 2009 (reference to Troy Stabenow’s work)

Anderson: gave a brief history of the skyrocketing of punishment on CP cases— over the years with no empirical evidence that incidents were increasing—just the penalties for same offense. Then came the 2003 PROTECT act.

Smith: Congress often did not even seek the USSC input on the increases: they’re very strong on ratcheting up the punishments to appear as a law and order elected official. Attorneys should pursue mental health evaluations for their client in order to provide professional evaluations.

The ID of pre-pubescent is often questionable. USSC was referenced in pointing out the rates of downloads in today’s technology; Booker variances were also referenced.

Dragan: There are very few probation only; sentences are almost a given. No one wants to be the ‘kiddie’ porn judge! New punishments are being studied. (Didn’t elaborate) Probation MIGHT be given in extreme health concern cases.  The defense attorney needs to look at what is being proven in the image count.  An example of one case where simple possession was determined because of the miscounting of the images by the prosecution.

Mandolfo In the 11th circuit, there have been cases that have occasionally been overturned regarding probation ‘only’ sentences. It is important for the defense to examine the images to be sure the actual number are those to be considered.  Good forensics examinations can be critical.  Don’t take the prosecution’s report at face value.  They frequently put the total images and only a fraction may be CP.

Number accuracy is critical! Push for Id on age determinations.

Parker: There is no obligation for probation to examine/review the images; in the best of situations, the defense and prosecution work collaboratively.  Often a small amount of images can make a big difference.  Look closely at what is being counted as CP for the charges and enhancements.  One participant the group (an attorney) said that in about 30% of his cases discrepancies are found.  (Ref article ‘Sextation”

He has to sometimes get the material through homeland security.  Reminded that anything over 601 creates an enhancement.  Admittedly it is very challenging to ck all the images.  Accurate information should be what is provided to the judge.  Commented that the district court in Tampa tends to rely heavily on probation.

Dragan: commented most of her cases are simple possession and result in a 60 month sentence.

Smith: commented that number of images is what’s driving the train.

Dragan: (when asked about lifetime supervision from a member of the audience) commented that almost all her defendants are being given lifetime supervision.  She is hearing that after 10 years, consideration may be given to come off supervision.  But none of this has yet happened!  Also polygraphs tie into this.

it has been suggested that supervision is so intense that if after 10 years no problems, this is quite an accomplishment.  Some circuits see it differently. Some are moving back. It would be better to look at this at the front end. There are a growing number of cases due to the length of the supervised release and it creates stress on both the offender and probation.  Variances occur between circuits, and even divisions within districts.  It may be necessary to file for the use of a computer. ( on behalf of the defendant)   Probation and the US Attorney are not making any favorable recommendations at this time. Regarding the polygraph, some questions are intrusive and should be focused on behaviors. From a P.O, in the audience: spoke of monthly contact and more evidence-based focus results in a significant initial first 6 months.  He said he does not think lifetime supr. release is a good idea.  In his trainings, the participants are not in favor of lifetime.  Recommends a 5 year and if there are issues then add an extension.  On the polygraph, contact with a minor on the polygraph is very important.  The bottom line is about protecting children.  The failure of a polygraph will not cause revocation…don’t fail on using Internet or contact with a minor. When the comment was made that the polygraph is to be a therapeutic tool, the room laughed!

Also a comment was made that there are high suicide rates among the simple possession offenders.

 

Day 2 Plenary session: Departures and Variances

Panel:

Honorable Mark Bennett, U.S. District Judge Norther District of Iowa

Charles N. Curlett, Jr. Esq. Leven and Curlett LLC, Baltimore, Maryland

Brian E. Maas, Esq. Frankfurt Kurnit, Klein and Selz, P.A. New York, New York

Moderator: Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. Kynes, Markman and Felman, P.A. Tampa, Florida

 

Judge Bennett has been on the bench for 22 years and sentenced over 4000 defendants.  This focus is on policy disagreements. Discussed the SCOTUS v Kimbro.  Indicated that the guidelines are NOT empirically based but many judges do not know this.  The prosecution as well as the defense attorney’s job is to convince based on guidelines whether or not empirically based as not.

Maas: Prior to guiltiness the prosecution took no role in sentencing. When guidelines came in, attempts were made to find credible departures.” This was a stupid game.” Then Booker helped and the courts could then begin to include statistics.  The characteristics of a dependent is important. (Then why not use this information in CP simple possession???)

Curlett is younger in his time practicing so is experienced only in the guidelines application.  It is now necessary to argue for variances to get the most favorable outcome. He did reference that there are judges who do take comfort in the guidelines (the 3553 (a) factors are important).

Maas: Variances occur across the country. His focus is primarily financial cases. The question was asked if guidelines were just a comfortable metric for judges.

Judge Bennett: commented there will always be disparities. Differences occur within districts.  Some judges can be ‘figured out’ based on the data of sentences handed out.

If a practicing attorney can determine or find out from the Probation Officer where the best sentencing breaks can be sought.

Corbett: Judges have certain patterns in their decisions by deconstructing guidelines.

Judge Bennett: Stories are important.  Lack of parental guidance, impact of neuro science, etc. can be frequently applied statements and/or positions.

Maas: It is important to understand your client.  Reference Judge Fredrick Lock, a drug career case.  He focused on collateral consequences.  Make efforts to get judge to get away from guidelines. Judge Lock wrote an article about overcoming the assumption of empirical basis.  The same holds true of Congress and we MUST overcome this bias.  There is no single place that collects policy variances.  This is especially true of policy disagreements on child pornography.  A departure is different from a variance.  A departure is reversible error.

Maas: guidelines can be used as a starting point.

When doing a policy disagreement one should invite the government to put on empirically based evidence—but no one has taken them up on this. Why?  Because they CAN’T!!Paralegals can pull together a body of records for a client and ID a broad range of mitigating factors.  Use statistics; use standards based arguments; use other judges’ rulings to make it more unacceptable to accept data with confidence.  It is more problematic to do this in larger districts.

(From a member in the audience)Assistant federal public defenders can keep records on each judge.  He did this for the lawyers in his district.

A serious thought to consider: if guidelines are not mandatory then they should be larger numbers of variances that after their existence.  Shows NO presumption of reasonableness based on the Booker ruling. Norms vary according to districts.  Case referenced U.S. v Nespeq

The USSC regarding departures and variances are well defined. Reference Commission 2011 17.8 ( Didn’t capture the full number  being referenced!)

Role of probation officers

Curlett has yet to have a case where probation recommended a downward departure.  Often the defense does not get to see the PO reports. Why is this??? Must do a good job in ensuring the PSI is accurate.

Maas: Again place emphasis on collateral consequences.  The defense attorney should provide the PO with all the information needed to assist in gaining their empathy and understanding.

Judge Bennett: Be reminded that probation works for the judges.  He has written many opinions on the use of mitigating factors which should be in evidence, NOT just in opinion.  Comment from Judge Bennett: There is no empirical basis for Re: CP.  The guidelines are utterly ridiculous!!!

 

 

Session: Criminal History: Role and Chapter three Adjustments

Panel: Richard Dellinger, Esq. Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor, & Reed, P.A. Orlando FL

Cynthia Gornbein, U.S. Probation officer, Middle District of Florida

Josie Thomas, Esq. Asst. U.S. attorney Middle Dist. Of Florida

Moderator: Marcos Hasburn, Esq. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP Tampa, Fl.

Thomas: began with statement that big changes have come out of the Booker ruling.  There is a lack of understanding on guidelines with a heavy reliance on them so one needs to have a strong understanding.

Gornbein;  Use all the information one can obtain and provide to the judge. Then allow the judge to decide what to use.

Dellinger One should never stop looking at Booker ruling. Know the guidelines manual.

This was a very technical presentation reference content of the guidelines. Offered little to our work.

 

 

Re-Entry

Panel:

 Kenyen Brown, Esq. U.S. Attorney, Southern Dist. of Alabama

Chong Bahng, U.S. probation Officer, Middle District of Florida

Honorable Anthony E Porcelli, U.S, magistrate Judge, Middle District of Florida

Honorable James D. Whittemore, U.S. district Court, Middle District of Florida

This particular session featured a program put in place by the judges on the panel to provide high risk offenders, primarily in drug related cases, a second chance by adhering to strict guidelines and being given support systems.  At the close I had the opportunity to interact with Judge Porcelli to inquire about the possibility for the sex offender population. He is to contact me with some information. He was astute enough to state that most sex offenders were at low levels to re-offend. This was reassuring and he was also aware to the Static 99 and how it was being used.