inetman2

jr@jeremyrichey.com (Jeremy Richey) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:34:10 GMT

Introduction This blog post if the first post in a series about sentencing hearings in Illinois. I will be writing most of these posts with the general public in mind, however, the legal practitioner unfamiliar with sentencing hearings may find these posts useful too. When Sentencing Hearings Occur Sentencing hearings are absent from most criminal cases. This is [...]

Weapon sentencing enhancements do not violate double jeopardy

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:08:07 GMT

The Supreme Court today decisively ruled that sentencing enhancements for the possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime are not constitutionally prohibited. The case is State v. Aguirre, No. 82226-3 (briefs and argument).

Daniel Aguirre was convicted in Thurston County Superior Court of assault and rape. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeals (Div. 2), arguing that a number of errors occurred at trial. Aguirre argues the trial court committed a number of errors, and argues that the deadly weapon enhancement to his sentence for assault with a deadly weapon violates double jeopardy. The double jeopardy clauses of both the federal and state constitutions protect defendants from being twice put in jeopardy for the same crime.

The Supreme Court, with Justice James Johnson writing the unanimous opinion, rejected all of Aguirre’s claims. On the double jeopardy issue the Court said: “Washington courts repeatedly have held that double jeopardy is not offended by weapon enhancements even when being armed with the weapon is an element of the underlying crime.”

Important Change in New Jersey DWI Sentencing

d.jaffe@duiattorney.com (Dan Jaffe) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:13:33 GMT

Last month, a New Jersey appellate court overturned a decision which had stood for 17 years when it ruled that prior convictions for violating New Jersey's implied consent law must be counted as prior DWI convictions during sentencing for DWIs. The case is State v. Ciancaglini, No. A-2785-08T4...

[This is a summary of the article only, to view the whole article, please visit http://www.duiattorney.com/news/]

New Sentencing Guidelines amendments aim to strengthen corporate compliance programs

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:59:13 GMT

On January 21, 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice of proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, which included amendments to those guidelines regarding the sentencing of organizations. Generally, when organizations are charged and convicted of a federal offense, the sentencing court uses Chapter 8 of the Sentencing Guidelines as a barometer in imposing penalties. Since they became effective in November 1991, those organizational Sentencing Guidelines have formed an important underpinning of corporate compliance programs by setting normative standards for good corporate citizenship. If enacted, the proposed amendments are expected to have a further significant effect on corporate structure and decision-making.

The first proposed amendment is to Section 8B2.1 titled Effective Compliance and Ethics Program (the “Compliance Guidelines”), which guides effective corporate compliance programs. The focus of the proposed amendment is document-retention policies, and it provides that executive management and members of the Board of Directors must be aware of the organization’s document-retention policies and conform such policies to the objective of an effective compliance plan. In addition, as part of a periodic assessment of its compliance plan, the organization will be required to verify that all employees are aware of the document-retention policies, and that such policies advance effective compliance. This amendment appears to be a response to recent prosecutions, such as the Arthur Andersen case, founded on allegations that multiple persons within organizations destroyed investigation-sensitive documents and that the organizations lacked document-retention policies which would have prevented the destruction.

The second proposed amendment also addresses the Compliance Guidelines and sets forth the steps the organization should take after detecting criminal conduct. The steps include self-reporting, cooperating with authorities, and providing restitution and remediation to identifiable victims. In addition, the amendment recommends that an organization periodically modify its corporate compliance as necessary, including employing an independent monitor to oversee the necessary modifications.

Moreover, the Commission has proposed an amendment to Section 8D1.4, governing conditions of probation for organizations. The amendment provides, as a condition of probation, that an organization would be required to retain an independent corporate monitor, agreed upon by the parties or appointed by the court. Further, the scope of the independent monitor’s role is to be approved by the court and the organization is to pay for the monitor’s compensation and costs. Similar provisions have become a staple of dispositions in recent years, but on an ad hoc basis. Furthermore, certain controversial monitorship appointments made by the former U.S. Attorney in the District of New Jersey, which organizations were obliged to accept as a condition of avoiding prosecution, have cast a critical light on the discretion formerly afforded individual U.S. Attorneys to appoint supporters or friends to lucrative monitorships. DOJ policies have changed as a result, significantly constraining that level of individual discretion, and the proposed amendment would codify and regulate the monitorship practice in the related sentencing context.

The Commission also proposed an amendment to Section 8C2.5(f)(3), which at present provides a reduction in sentencing for an effective compliance program. The proposed amendment would entitle an organization to receive such a reduction even where executive management or members of the Board are involved in the wrongdoing if: (a) the person with operational responsibility for corporate compliance reports directly to the Board level; (b) the compliance program is the first to uncover the offense; and (c) the organization reports the criminal conduct to the appropriate authorities. Clearly, this amendment aims at creating a wedge issue for organizations, incentivizing strong special committees of the Board and high-ranking compliance officers to act in the entity's overall interests, regardless of the particular interests of other individual officers or Board members.

Comments to the Commission regarding the proposed amendments are due March 22, 2010. The Commission will then hold a public hearing on these comments.

(With appreciation to Patrick J. Egan, Esq. and Christine Soares, Esq., for their analysis of the Sentencing Commission's proposals, from which this entry was drawn)

Sentencing Considerations for Corporations and Organizations

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:00:56 GMT

We received an excellent reader question regarding what factors do Federal courts consider in imposing punishment on corporations or organizations in criminal proceedings. Corporations of course, don’t “go to jail.” The Government does collect its $200 however, since the organization sentencing provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines are primarily fine-driven. And while there is a massive body of law concerning factors which must be considered in imposing sentence on individuals, caselaw relating to considerations in imposing punishment on corporations is relatively sparse.

However, areas which courts consider in sentencing corporations or organizations, and conversely areas which corporate criminal counsel may emphasize in order to attempt to mitigate the consequences to their corporate clients, may be discerned from the Guidelines themselves. In many cases, such as relating to acceptance of responsibility and role in the offense, these considerations closely parallel those for individual defendant. The questions facing a corporation at sentencing will boil down to how much will the corporation be made to pay in the form of fines and restitution, and what conditions will be imposed on the corporation.

The relevant portion of the Guidelines is Chapter Eight. Imposing a sentence on a corporation or organization in a Federal criminal case involves a complex determination by the sentencing court. In brief, the court must:

1. Determine whether any restitution, remedial orders or community service should be ordered;

2. Determine the amount of the fine, including determining the corporation’s or organization’s “culpability score”;

3. Determine whether any departures or probation is appropriate.

The Introductory Commentary to Chapter Eight states that it is designed “designed so that the sanctions imposed upon organizations and their agents, taken together, will provide just punishment, adequate deterrence, and incentives for organizations to maintain internal mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and reporting criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G., Ch. 8, Pt. A, Introductory Commentary. The sentencing provisions of Chapter Eight are intended to reflect the general principles that:

First, the court must, whenever practicable, order the organization to remedy any harm caused by the offense. The resources expended to remedy the harm should not be viewed as punishment, but rather as a means of making victims whole for the harm caused.

Second, if the organization operated primarily for a criminal purpose or primarily by criminal means, the fine should be set sufficiently high to divest the organization of all its assets.

Third, the fine range for any other organization should be based on the seriousness of the offense and the culpability of the organization. The seriousness of the offense generally will be reflected by the greatest of the pecuniary gain, the pecuniary loss, or the amount in a guideline offense level fine table. Culpability generally will be determined by six factors that the sentencing court must consider. The four factors that increase the ultimate punishment of an organization are: (i) the involvement in or tolerance of criminal activity; (ii) the prior history of the organization; (iii) the violation of an order; and (iv) the obstruction of justice. The two factors that mitigate the ultimate punishment of an organization are: (i) the existence of an effective compliance and ethics program; and (ii) self-reporting, cooperation, or acceptance of responsibility.

Fourth, probation is an appropriate sentence for an organizational defendant when needed to ensure that another sanction will be fully implemented, or to ensure that steps will be taken within the organization to reduce the likelihood of future criminal conduct.

U.S.S.G., Ch. 8, Pt. A, Introductory Commentary. The provisions are designed to offer “incentives” to corporations or other organizations to police and eliminate criminal conduct through compliance and ethics programs. U.S.S.G., Ch. 8, Pt. A, Introductory Commentary.

The Introductory Commentary to Part B of Chapter Eight states:

As a general principle, the court should require that the organization take all appropriate steps to provide compensation to victims and otherwise remedy the harm caused or threatened by the offense. A restitution order or an order of probation requiring restitution can be used to compensate identifiable victims of the offense. A remedial order or an order of probation requiring community service can be used to reduce or eliminate the harm threatened, or to repair the harm caused by the offense, when that harm or threatened harm would otherwise not be remedied.

U.S.S.G., Ch. 8, Pt. B. Guideline Section 8B1.1 requires a court to enter a restitution order for the full amount of a victim’s loss if such an order is authorized. Section 8B1.3 authorizes a court to order community service as a condition of probation “where such community service is reasonably designed to repair the harm caused by the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 8B1.3. The commentary on Section 8B1.3 notes that the community service should be “related to the purposes of sentencing.” U.S.S.G. § 8B1.3, Cmt.

Guidelines Section 8B2.1 describes an “effective compliance and ethics program.” It states that, in order to have an effective compliance and ethics program, a corporation or organization must:

1. Exercise due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct and establish standards and procedures to prevent and

detect criminal conduct;

2. “[P]romote an organizational culture that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law”;

3. Ensure that the corporation’s or organization’s governing authority is knowledgeable about the compliance and ethics program and that specific individuals have day-to-day responsibility for the program; and

4. Take reasonable steps to ensure that the compliance and ethics program is followed, enforced and evaluated.

A critical provision is Guidelines Section 8C2.5, which governs determination of a corporation’s “culpability score.” That section provides for a base score of 5 points with increases or decreases to the level for:

1. Condoning, tolerating or “willful ignorance” of criminal activity by corporate governing authorities or high-level personnel;

2. Any prior history of misconduct;

3. Any violation of orders or obstruction of justice; and/or

4. Self-reporting, cooperation and acceptance of responsibility.

With regard to a decrease in culpability level for cooperation, the Application Notes state that:

[C]ooperation must be both timely and thorough. To be timely, the cooperation must begin essentially at the same time as the organization is officially notified of a criminal investigation. To be thorough, the cooperation should include the disclosure of all pertinent information known by the organization. A prime test of whether the organization has disclosed all pertinent information is whether the information is sufficient for law enforcement personnel to identify the nature and extent of the offense and the individual(s) responsible for the criminal conduct.

U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5, Note 12.

Another vital provision is Guideline Section 8C2.8—the corporate equivalent of Code Section 3553(a) which courts must consider in sentencing individuals. Section 8C2.8 provides:

(a) In determining the amount of the fine within the applicable guideline range, the court should consider:

(1) the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes of the organization;

(2) the organization’s role in the offense;

(3) any collateral consequences of conviction, including civil obligations arising from the organization’s conduct;

(4) any nonpecuniary loss caused or threatened by the offense;

(5) whether the offense involved a vulnerable victim;

(6) any prior criminal record of an individual within high-level personnel of the organization or high-level personnel of a unit of the organization who participated in, condoned, or was willfully ignorant of the criminal conduct;

(7) any prior civil or criminal misconduct by the organization other than that counted under §8C2.5(c);

(8) any culpability score under §8C2.5 (Culpability Score) higher than 10 or lower than 0;

(9) partial but incomplete satisfaction of the conditions for one or more of the mitigating or aggravating factors set forth in §8C2.5 (Culpability Score);

(10) any factor listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a); and

(11) whether the organization failed to have, at the time of the instant offense, an effective compliance and ethics program within the meaning of §8B2.1 (Effective Compliance and Ethics Program).

(b) In addition, the court may consider the relative importance of any factor used to determine the range, including the pecuniary loss caused by the offense, the pecuniary gain from the offense, any specific offense characteristic used to determine the offense level, and any aggravating or mitigating factor used to determine the culpability score.

U.S.S.G. § 8C2.8. The Application Notes to Section 8C2.8 further state, in relevant part, “[i]f punitive collateral sanctions have been or will be imposed on the organization, this may provide a basis for a lower fine within the guideline fine range.” U.S.S.G. § 8C2.8, Note 2.

Finally, Part C of Chapter Eight provides for departures from a sentence/fine if a court finds “that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” U.S.S.G., Ch. 8, Pt. C, Introductory Commentary. The relevant potential grounds for upward or downward departures are:

1. Substantial assistance to authorities under Section 8C4.1;

2. Risk of death or bodily injury under Section 8C4.2;

3. Threat to the environment under Section 8C4.4;

4. Threat to a market under Section 8C4.5;

5. Public entity (ground for downward departure) under Section 8C4.7;

6. If members or beneficiaries of the corporation or organization are also victims (ground for downward departure) under Section 8C4.8;

7. Whether the remedial costs exceed the gain from the offense under Section 8C4.9; and

8. Mandatory programs to detect and prevent violations of the law under Section 8C4.10.

From this maze of Guidelines, the following potential points can be derived for corporate criminal counsel to potentially argue in favor of a low or lesser punishment or fine, departure or for mitigation generally:

Any compliance and ethics programs instituted or proposed by the corporation either before or following the alleged conduct;
Any actions the corporation has taken to remedy any harm from the alleged conduct, including:
1. Restitution to any victims;
2. Institution or proposal of a compliance and ethics program;
3. Any other efforts the corporation has made to detect or prevent criminal activity, or to detect or prevent any recurrence of the alleged conduct;
The corporation’s service to the community before or following the alleged conduct;
Whether the corporation reported the alleged conduct to law enforcement;
Whether the corporation cooperated and/or rendered substantial assistance to the Government, and the degree of such cooperation and/or assistance;
Whether the alleged conduct constituted a distinct, isolated instance, as opposed to demonstrating that the corporation had an alleged criminal purpose;
The relative position of the individuals involved in, or having knowledge of, the alleged conduct—i.e. whether governing or high level officers or lower level personnel;
Whether the corporation has any history of similar conducts;
The seriousness of the alleged conduct, including whether it resulted in any physical harm, threat to any market, third party, etc.;
The corporation’s role in the alleged conduct, including whether the corporation or its officers, members or employees were also victims of the alleged conduct;
The lack of likelihood of recurrence of the alleged conduct;
The corporation’s efforts to investigate the alleged conduct and actions against culpable individuals;
Whether the alleged conduct resulted in collateral consequences to the corporation, including costs from investigation, civil lawsuits relating to the alleged conduct, etc.; and
Whether the gains from the alleged conduct were outweighed by the costs incurred by the corporation in responding to and remedying the alleged conduct.

These points may also furnish useful guidelines or tips for corporate officers or members and counsel in attempting to devise appropriate responses in the event of notice of alleged wrongdoing and/or a criminal investigation.

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued its 2010 Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which may be viewed here, which contain much of interest for both corporate and individual defendants.

In regard to corporations or “organizational" defendants, the Commission has proposed several changes to Chapter Eight of the Guidelines. The Proposed Amendments amend Guideline Section §8B2.1, governing compliance and ethics programs for corporations, by adding language in the Application Notes regarding personnel who must be aware of an organization’s document retention policies and conform to such policies and setting forth “reasonable steps that an organization should take after detection of criminal conduct.” The steps are:

First, the organization should respond appropriately to the criminal conduct. In the event the criminal conduct has an identifiable victim or victims the organization should take reasonable steps to provide restitution and otherwise remedy the harm resulting from the criminal conduct. Other appropriate responses may include self-reporting, cooperation with authorities, and other forms of remediation. Second, to prevent further similar criminal conduct, the organization should assess the compliance and ethics program and make modifications necessary to ensure the program is more effective. The organization may take the additional step of retaining an independent monitor to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of the modifications.

Section 8D1.4, governing conditions for probation for corporations or organizations, is also amended to provide, as conditions of probation, that an organization develop and submit a compliance and ethics program and retain an independent monitor. The amendment further provides that organizations must disclose any material adverse changes in its business or financial condition or prosepects, and any new criminal prosecutions, civil litigation, administrative proceedings, investigations or formal inquiries commenced against the organization.

Last September, the Commission had stated that one of its policy priorities would be to study alternatives to incarceration. Accordingly, the Proposed Amendments increase “Zone B” and “Zone C” of the Guidelines’ Sentencing Table by one level. Defendants with Guidelines calculations falling within Zone B are eligible, instead of a sentence of imprisonment, to have imposed “a sentence of probation that includes a condition or combination of conditions that substitute intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home detention for imprisonment…” pursuant to Section §5C1.1(b)(3).

The Commission has sought comments on its Proposed Amendments. It has also sought comments on potential revisions to certain specific offender characteristics as a basis for downward departure in sentence pursuant to the policy statements in Chapter 5 of the Guidelines, including age; mental and emotional condition; physical condition; military, civic, charitable, or public service, employment-related contributions and record of prior good works; and lack of guidance as a youth. The Commission has stated that it has considered eliminating these statements pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, which mandated that sentencing courts consider a defendant’s “history and characteristics” pursuant to Section 3553(a) in fashioning a reasonable sentence. Under the “old” Guidelines system, such factors were either prohibited or discouraged grounds for a downward departure in sentence.

The Proposed Amendments also take into account the Supreme Court’s landmark holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) that the Guidelines are advisory, rather than mandatory, by amending the instructions on applying the Guidelines in Section 1B1.1 to provide that, after a sentencing court has determined the proper sentencing range under the Guidelines and considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “[t]he court shall then determine the sentence (i.e., a sentence within the guideline range, a departure, or a variance), considering the applicable factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) taken as a whole.”

The Proposed Amendments expand courts’ authority to impose probation as an alternative to incarceration in certain drug cases in a new proposed Guideline Section 5C1.3 provided that the defendant participates in a substance abuse treatment program and meets certain additional criteria. The Amendments furthermore suggest changes to determining a defendant’s criminal history in terms of the recency of prior offenses. Finally, the Proposed Amendments also recommend so-called “hate crimes” enhancements under Section 3A1.1 which provide for an increase of 3 or more levels to a defendant’s offense level where “the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation of any person…”

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:17:13 GMT

Recent Articles tagged sentencing from LexMonitor

inetman2

Weapon sentencing enhancements do not violate double jeopardy

Important Change in New Jersey DWI Sentencing

New Sentencing Guidelines amendments aim to strengthen corporate compliance programs

Sentencing Considerations for Corporations and Organizations

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement

Sentencing Commission Issues Proposed Amendments to Guidelines Relating to Corporations, Individuals; Increases Potential for Probationary Sentences; New Probation Options in Drug Cases; Hate Crimes Enhancement