[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 130 Referred in House (RFH)]
2d Session
S. CON. RES. 130
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 22, 2004
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court of the United
States should act expeditiously to resolve the confusion and
inconsistency in the Federal criminal justice system caused by its
decision in Blakely v. Washington, and for other purposes.
Whereas Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to provide certainty
and fairness in sentencing, avoid unwarranted disparities among
defendants with similar records found guilty of similar offenses, and
maintain sufficient flexibility to permit individualized sentences when
warranted;
Whereas Congress established the United States Sentencing Commission as an
independent commission in the Judicial branch of the United States to
establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal
justice system that meet the purposes of sentencing and the core goals
of the Sentencing Reform Act;
Whereas Congress has prescribed both statutory minimum and statutory maximum
penalties for certain offenses and the Sentencing Reform Act authorizes
the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines and establish
sentencing ranges for the use of a sentencing court in determining a
sentence within the statutory minimum and maximum penalties prescribed
by Congress;
Whereas the statutory maximum penalty is the maximum penalty provided by the
statute defining the offense of conviction, including any applicable
statutory enhancements, and not the upper end of the guideline
sentencing range promulgated by the Sentencing Commission and determined
to be applicable to a particular defendant;
Whereas both Congress and the Sentencing Commission intended the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines to be applied as a cohesive and integrated whole,
and not in a piecemeal fashion;
Whereas in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), the Supreme Court of
the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform
Act and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines against separation-of-powers
and non-delegation challenges;
Whereas in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the Supreme Court held
that the sentencing guidelines of the State of Washington violated a
defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury;
Whereas despite Mistretta and numerous other Supreme Court opinions over the
past 15 years affirming the constitutionality of various aspects of the
Guidelines, the Blakely decision has raised concern about the continued
constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines;
Whereas the Blakely decision has created substantial confusion and uncertainty
in the Federal criminal justice system;
Whereas the lower Federal courts have reached inconsistent positions on the
applicability of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines;
Whereas there is a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to the
applicability of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals has certified the question to the
Supreme Court;
Whereas the orderly administration of justice in pending and resolved trials,
sentencings and plea negotiations has been affected by the uncertainty
surrounding the applicability of the Blakely decision to the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines;
Whereas the current confusion in the lower Federal courts has and will continue
to produce results that disserve the core principles underlying the
Sentencing Reform Act;
Whereas two and one-half weeks after the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Blakely, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing to consider
the implications of the decision for the Federal criminal justice
system; and
Whereas the Department of Justice, the Sentencing Commission, and others advised
the Committee that corrective legislation was not necessary at this
time, with the hope that the Supreme Court would clarify the
applicability of its Blakely decision to the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines in an expeditious manner: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That it is the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court of the United
States should act expeditiously to resolve the current confusion and
inconsistency in the Federal criminal justice system by promptly
considering and ruling on the constitutionality of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines.
Passed the Senate July 21, 2004.
Attest:
EMILY J. REYNOLDS,
Secretary.