Case Brief: Gall v. US

1. HaroldSowards
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
8/31/15
Gall v. US
552 U.S. 38 (2007)
1. Facts
 Brian Michael Gall convicted(afterpleadingguilty)inthe U.S.DistrictCourt forthe
SouthernDistrictforIowaof conspiracytodistribute ecstasyandwassentencedto36
monthsof probation
 Governmentappealedandchallengedthe sentence
 8th
CircuitCourtof Appealsremandedforresentencingandcertiorari wasgranted
 In Feb.or March 2000, Gall invitedbyLuke Rinderknechttojoinanongoingenterprise
distributingacontrolledsubstance popularlyknownasecstasy
 Aftera monthafterjoiningthe conspiracyhe stoppedusingecstasy
 A fewmonthslaterinSeptember,withdrew fromthe conspiracy
 Graduatedfromcollege in2002 and movedto Arizonaandhasn’tusedan illegal drugs
 Gets initial interviewfromfederalagentsandadmitstohislimitedparticipationinthe
distributionof ecstasy
 April 28, 2004 an indictmentwasreturnedinthe SouthernDistrictof Iowacharginghim
and 7 othersforparticipatinginaconspiracyto distribute ecstasy,cocaine and
marijuanathatbeganin May 1996 and continuedthroughOctober30, 2002
 Movesback to Iowaand surrenderstothe authorities
 Entersintoa pleaagreementwiththe governmentandstipulatedthathe was
responsible fordistributingatleast2500 gramsof ecstasyor the equivalentof atleast
87.5 kilogramsof marijuana.Inthisagreementthe governmentacknowledgedthathe
had intenttostopdeliveringecstasy andalsoprovidedthatrecentchangesinthe
guidelinesenhancedthe recommendedpunishmentfordistributingecstasyweren’t
applicable toGall because he hadwithdrawnfromthe conspiracypriortothe effective
datesof those changes
 In presentencereport,the probationofficerconcludedthatGall hadno significant
criminal history,he isn’tamanager/leader/organizerandthathisoffense had no
weaponinvolvement.Alsostatedthathe truthfullyprovidedthe governmentall
evidence concerningthe allegedoffensesbutthe evidence wasn’tuseful because he
providednonewinformation.Alsodescribedhissubstantial druguse priortothe
offense andthe absence of anysuchin recentyearsandrecommendedasentencing
range of 30-37 monthsof imprisonment.
 Sentence hearingwasheldonMay27, 2005
 DistrictJudge sentencedGall toprobationforaterm of 36 monthsusing18 U.S.C. 3553
(a) and also implieda3 yr regime of alcohol anddrug testing
 Court of Appealsreversedandremandedforresentencingandstatedthathissentence
was extraordinaryandamountedtoadownwardvariance

2. 2. Issue
Coulda reasonable juristconcludethata sentence of probationwassufficientinthiscase to
serve the purposesof punishmentsetoutin18 U.S.C.Statute 3553 (a)(2)?
Was the appropriatenessof the sentence explained?
3. Holdings
No
No
4. Reasoning
You mustnot presume thatthe Guidelinesrange isreasonable butmustanindividualized
assessmentbasedonthe factspermitted.Onthe abuse-of-discretionreview,the 8th
Circuitgave
virtuallynodeference tothe districtcourt’sdecisionthatthe variance wasjustified.The Circuit
clearlydisagreedwiththe districtcourt’sdecisionbutitwasnot for the court to decide de novo.
Theyshould’ve givendue deference tothe districtcourt’sreasonedandreasonabledecision
that the statute 3553 (a) factors,on the whole,justifiedthe sentence. Theyalsousedthe
UnitedStatesv.Bookercase to determine whatreasonableabuse-of-discretionstandards
appliestoappellate reviewof sentencingdecisions.