Sentencing Guidelines for the United States Courts, 217-220 [E7-25483]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
an index-linked security, listed on the
Exchange pursuant to sections 703.19 or
703.22 of the Listed Company Manual,
in connection with the transfer of the
listing of the security to another
national securities exchange, would
need to provide to the Exchange a letter
signed by an authorized executive
officer of the issuer setting forth the
reasons for the delisting. The issuer of
an index-linked security is required to
comply with all other aspects of section
806.02 of the Listed Company Manual
and Rule 12d2–2(c) under the Act,
which requires, among other things, that
issuers comply with all applicable laws
in effect in the state in which they are
incorporated.
In addition, the Exchange is deleting
obsolete rule text from section 806.02 of
the Listed Company Manual.
to be listed and traded on a national
securities exchange.9 Further, the
Commission notes that requiring a letter
from an authorized executive officer
would ensure the issuer properly made
the delisting decision and complied
with applicable laws in effect in its
jurisdiction, consistent with investor
protection and the public interest. The
Exchange further represented that the
issuers informed the Exchange that
under the laws of their place of
incorporation, no board of directors
resolutions are required.
The Commission notes that since the
securities would list and trade on
another national securities exchange,
transparent last sale information will
continue to be disseminated on the
securities on an uninterrupted basis. It
would also ensure the other protections
for trading a security on a national
securities exchange remain, such as the
periodic reporting obligations under the
Act.
Finally, the Commission finds
deletion of the obsolete language is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act. The language to be deleted is no
longer in effect since the Commission
approved NYSE rules to comply with
the July 2005 amendments to Rule
12d2–2 under the Act.
Based on the above reasons, the
Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations applicable to a
national securities exchange, and in
particular, with the requirements of
section 6(b) of the Act.5 Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with section
6(b)(5) of the Act 6 in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities,
and to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that requiring
a letter from an authorized executive
officer instead of a certified copy of the
resolutions adopted by the issuer’s
board of directors is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 12d2–2 under the
Act 7 and notes that the proposal is
similar to the voluntary withdrawal
procedures for dually-listed issuers on
NYSE Arca, Inc.8 Replacing the board
certification requirement with a letter
from an authorized executive officer
may ease the burden on issuers of
index-linked securities who wish to
transfer the listing to another national
securities exchange. The Commission
notes that the security would continue
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that the
proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–2007–
99) is hereby approved.
5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, the Commission considered
the proposed rule’s impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
7 17 CFR 240.12d2–2.
8 See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.4(b).
9 In its filing, the Exchange represented that it
does not plan to list any more index-linked
securities and the issuers of all listed index-linked
securities have agreed to the Exchange’s request to
transfer the listing to NYSE Arca, Inc.
10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:55 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
IV. Conclusion
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.11
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–25446 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
UNITED STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION
Sentencing Guidelines for the United
States Courts
United States Sentencing
Commission.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
217
Notice of final action regarding
amendments to Policy Statement
§ 1B1.10, effective March 3, 2008.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Sentencing Commission
hereby gives notice of amendments to a
policy statement and commentary made
pursuant to its authority under 28
U.S.C. 994(a) and (u). The Commission
promulgated an amendment to Policy
Statement § 1B1.10 (Reduction in Term
of Imprisonment as a Result of
Amended Guideline Range) clarifying
when, and to what extent, a sentencing
reduction is considered consistent with
the policy statement and therefore
authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
The Commission also has reviewed
amendments submitted to Congress on
May 1, 2007, that may result in a lower
guideline range and has designated
Amendment 706, as amended by
Amendment 711, for inclusion in Policy
Statement § 1B1.10 as an amendment
that may be applied retroactively.
DATES: The effective date of these policy
statement and commentary amendments
is March 3, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Courlander, Public Information
Officer, Telephone: (202) 502–4597.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
United States Sentencing Commission is
an independent agency in the judicial
branch of the United States
Government. The Commission
promulgates sentencing guidelines and
policy statements for federal sentencing
courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The
Commission also periodically reviews
and revises previously promulgated
guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o),
and specifies in what circumstances and
by what amount sentences of
imprisonment may be reduced if the
Commission reduces the term of
imprisonment recommended in the
guidelines applicable to a particular
offense or category of offenses pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 994(u).
Additional information may be
accessed through the Commission’s Web
site at https://www.ussc.gov.
Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (u).
Ricardo H. Hinojosa,
Chair.
1. Amendment: Chapter One, Part B,
Subpart One, is amended by striking
§ 1B1.10 and its accompanying
commentary and inserting the
following:
• ‘‘§ 1B1.10. Reduction in Term of
Imprisonment as a Result of Amended
Guideline Range (Policy Statement)
(a) Authority.—
(1) In General.—In a case in which a
defendant is serving a term of
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
218
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
imprisonment, and the guideline range
applicable to that defendant has
subsequently been lowered as a result of
an amendment to the Guidelines
Manual listed in subsection (c) below,
the court may reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment as provided by 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). As required by 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in
the defendant’s term of imprisonment
shall be consistent with this policy
statement.
(2) Exclusions.—A reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
consistent with this policy statement
and therefore is not authorized under 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) if—
(A) None of the amendments listed in
subsection (c) is applicable to the
defendant; or
(B) An amendment listed in
subsection (c) does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.
(3) Limitation.—Consistent with
subsection (b), proceedings under 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and this policy
statement do not constitute a full
resentencing of the defendant.
(b) Determination of Reduction in
Term of Imprisonment.—
(1) In General.—In determining
whether, and to what extent, a reduction
in the defendant’s term of imprisonment
under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and this
policy statement is warranted, the court
shall determine the amended guideline
range that would have been applicable
to the defendant if the amendment(s) to
the guidelines listed in subsection (c)
had been in effect at the time the
defendant was sentenced. In making
such determination, the court shall
substitute only the amendments listed
in subsection (c) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied
when the defendant was sentenced and
shall leave all other guideline
application decisions unaffected.
(2) Limitations and Prohibition on
Extent of Reduction.—
(A) In General.—Except as provided
in subdivision (B), the court shall not
reduce the defendant’s term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to
a term that is less than the minimum of
the amended guideline range
determined under subdivision (1) of this
subsection.
(B) Exception.—If the original term of
imprisonment imposed was less than
the term of imprisonment provided by
the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing, a
reduction comparably less than the
amended guideline range determined
under subdivision (1) of this subsection
may be appropriate. However, if the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
original term of imprisonment
constituted a non-guideline sentence
determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3553(a) and United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction
generally would not be appropriate.
(C) Prohibition.—In no event may the
reduced term of imprisonment be less
than the term of imprisonment the
defendant has already served.
(c) Amendments covered by this
policy statement are listed in Appendix
C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269,
329, 341, 371, 379, 380, 433, 454, 461,
484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591,
599, 606, 657, and 702.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. Application of Subsection (a).—
(A) Eligibility.—Eligibility for
consideration under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an
amendment listed in subsection (c) that
lowers the applicable guideline range.
Accordingly, a reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)
and is not consistent with this policy
statement if: (i) None of the
amendments listed in subsection (c) is
applicable to the defendant; or (ii) an
amendment listed in subsection (c) is
applicable to the defendant but the
amendment does not have the effect of
lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range because of the operation
of another guideline or statutory
provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment).
(B) Factors for Consideration.—
(i) In General.—Consistent with 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), the court shall
consider the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. 3553(a) in determining: (I)
whether a reduction in the defendant’s
term of imprisonment is warranted; and
(II) the extent of such reduction, but
only within the limits described in
subsection (b).
(ii) Public Safety Consideration.—The
court shall consider the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person
or the community that may be posed by
a reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment in determining: (I)
Whether such a reduction is warranted;
and (II) the extent of such reduction, but
only within the limits described in
subsection (b).
(iii) Post-Sentencing Conduct.—The
court may consider post-sentencing
conduct of the defendant that occurred
after imposition of the original term of
imprisonment in determining: (I)
Whether a reduction in the defendant’s
term of imprisonment is warranted; and
(II) the extent of such reduction, but
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
only within the limits described in
subsection (b).
2. Application of Subsection (b)(1).—
In determining the amended guideline
range under subsection (b)(1), the court
shall substitute only the amendments
listed in subsection (c) for the
corresponding guideline provisions that
were applied when the defendant was
sentenced. All other guideline
application decisions remain
unaffected.
3. Application of Subsection (b)(2).—
Under subsection (b)(2), the amended
guideline range determined under
subsection (b)(1) and the term of
imprisonment already served by the
defendant limit the extent to which the
court may reduce the defendant’s term
of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement.
Specifically, if the original term of
imprisonment imposed was within the
guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing, the
court shall not reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment to a term that is
less than the minimum term of
imprisonment provided by the amended
guideline range determined under
subsection (b)(1). For example, in a case
in which: (A) The guideline range
applicable to the defendant at the time
of sentencing was 41 to 51 months; (B)
the original term of imprisonment
imposed was 41 months; and (C) the
amended guideline range determined
under subsection (b)(1) is 30 to 37
months, the court shall not reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment to a
term less than 30 months.
If the original term of imprisonment
imposed was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline
range applicable to the defendant at the
time of sentencing, a reduction
comparably less than the amended
guideline range determined under
subsection (b)(1) may be appropriate.
For example, in a case in which: (A) The
guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing was
70 to 87 months; (B) the defendant’s
original term of imprisonment imposed
was 56 months (representing a
downward departure of 20 percent
below the minimum term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline
range applicable to the defendant at the
time of sentencing); and (C) the
amended guideline range determined
under subsection (b)(1) is 57 to 71
months, a reduction to a term of
imprisonment of 46 months
(representing a reduction of
approximately 20 percent below the
minimum term of imprisonment
provided by the amended guideline
range determined under subsection
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
(b)(1)) would amount to a comparable
reduction and may be appropriate.
In no case, however, shall the term of
imprisonment be reduced below time
served. Subject to these limitations, the
sentencing court has the discretion to
determine whether, and to what extent,
to reduce a term of imprisonment under
this section.
4. Supervised Release.—
(A) Exclusion Relating to
Revocation.—Only a term of
imprisonment imposed as part of the
original sentence is authorized to be
reduced under this section. This section
does not authorize a reduction in the
term of imprisonment imposed upon
revocation of supervised release.
(B) Modification Relating to Early
Termination.—If the prohibition in
subsection (b)(2)(C) relating to time
already served precludes a reduction in
the term of imprisonment to the extent
the court determines otherwise would
have been appropriate as a result of the
amended guideline range determined
under subsection (b)(1), the court may
consider any such reduction that it was
unable to grant in connection with any
motion for early termination of a term
of supervised release under 18 U.S.C.
3583(e)(1). However, the fact that a
defendant may have served a longer
term of imprisonment than the court
determines would have been
appropriate in view of the amended
guideline range determined under
subsection (b)(1) shall not, without
more, provide a basis for early
termination of supervised release.
Rather, the court should take into
account the totality of circumstances
relevant to a decision to terminate
supervised release, including the term
of supervised release that would have
been appropriate in connection with a
sentence under the amended guideline
range determined under subsection
(b)(1).
Background: Section 3582(c)(2) of
Title 18, United States Code, provides:
‘[I]n the case of a defendant who has
been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon
motion of the defendant or the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own
motion, the court may reduce the term
of imprisonment, after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable, if such
a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.’
This policy statement provides
guidance and limitations for a court
when considering a motion under 18
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and implements 28
U.S.C. 994(u), which provides: ‘If the
Commission reduces the term of
imprisonment recommended in the
guidelines applicable to a particular
offense or category of offenses, it shall
specify in what circumstances and by
what amount the sentences of prisoners
serving terms of imprisonment for the
offense may be reduced.’
Among the factors considered by the
Commission in selecting the
amendments included in subsection (c)
were the purpose of the amendment, the
magnitude of the change in the
guideline range made by the
amendment, and the difficulty of
applying the amendment retroactively
to determine an amended guideline
range under subsection (b)(1).
The listing of an amendment in
subsection (c) reflects policy
determinations by the Commission that
a reduced guideline range is sufficient
to achieve the purposes of sentencing
and that, in the sound discretion of the
court, a reduction in the term of
imprisonment may be appropriate for
previously sentenced, qualified
defendants. The authorization of such a
discretionary reduction does not
otherwise affect the lawfulness of a
previously imposed sentence, does not
authorize a reduction in any other
component of the sentence, and does
not entitle a defendant to a reduced
term of imprisonment as a matter of
right.
The Commission has not included in
this policy statement amendments that
generally reduce the maximum of the
guideline range by less than six months.
This criterion is in accord with the
legislative history of 28 U.S.C. 994(u)
(formerly section 994(t)), which states:
‘It should be noted that the Committee
does not expect that the Commission
will recommend adjusting existing
sentences under the provision when
guidelines are simply refined in a way
that might cause isolated instances of
existing sentences falling above the old
guidelines* or when there is only a
minor downward adjustment in the
guidelines. The Committee does not
believe the courts should be burdened
with adjustments in these cases.’ S. Rep.
225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 180 (1983).
*So in original. Probably should be ‘to fall
above the amended guidelines’.’’.
Reason for Amendment: This
amendment makes a number of
modifications to *1B1.10 (Reduction in
Term of Imprisonment as a Result of
Amended Guideline Range) to clarify
when, and to what extent, a reduction
in the defendant’s term of imprisonment
is consistent with the policy statement
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
219
and is therefore authorized under 18
U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
The amendment modifies subsection
(a) to state the statutory requirement
under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) that a
reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment be consistent with the
policy statement. The amendment also
modifies subsection (a) to state that,
consistent with subsection (b),
proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)
do not constitute a full resentencing of
the defendant.
In addition, the amendment amends
subsection (a) to clarify circumstances
in which a reduction in the defendant’s
term of imprisonment is not consistent
with the policy statement and therefore
is not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2). Specifically, the amendment
provides that a reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
consistent with § 1B1.10 and therefore is
not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) if (1) none of the amendments
listed in subsection (c) is applicable to
the defendant; or (2) an amendment
listed in subsection (c) does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guideline range. Application
Note 1 provides further explanation that
an amendment may be listed in
subsection (c) but not have the effect of
lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range because of the operation
of another guideline or statutory
provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment). In
such a case, a reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
consistent with § 1B1.10 and therefore is
not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2).
The amendment modifies subsection
(b) to clarify the limitations on the
extent to which a court may reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment under
18 U.S.C. 582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10.
Specifically, in subsection (b)(1) the
amendment provides that, in
determining whether, and to what
extent, a reduction in the defendant’s
term of imprisonment is warranted, the
court shall determine the amended
guideline range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the
amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in
subsection (c) had been in effect at the
time the defendant was sentenced,
substituting only the amendments listed
in subsection (c) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied
when the defendant was sentenced and
leaving all other guideline application
decisions unaffected.
In subsection (b)(2) the amendment
provides further clarification that the
court shall not reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment to a term that is
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
220
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
less than the minimum of the amended
guideline range, except if the original
term of imprisonment imposed was less
than the term of imprisonment provided
by the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing, a
reduction comparably less than the
amended guideline range may be
appropriate. However, if the original
term of imprisonment constituted a nonguideline sentence determined pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further
reduction generally would not be
appropriate. The amendment clarifies
that in no event may the reduced term
of imprisonment be less than the term
of imprisonment the defendant has
already served. The amendment adds in
Application Note 3 examples
illustrating the limitations on the extent
to which a court may reduce a
defendant’s term of imprisonment under
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10.
The amendment also modifies
Application Note 1 to delineate more
clearly factors for consideration by the
court in determining whether, and to
what extent, a reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment is
warranted under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
Specifically, the amendment provides
that the court shall consider the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), as
required by 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), and
the nature and seriousness of the danger
to any person or the community that
may be posed by such a reduction, but
only within the limits described in
subsection (b). In addition, the
amendment provides that the court may
consider post-sentencing conduct of the
defendant that occurred after imposition
of the original term of imprisonment,
but only within the limits described in
subsection (b).
The amendment makes conforming
changes and adds headings to the
application notes, and makes
conforming changes to the background
commentary.
2. Amendment: Section 1B1.10, as
amended by Amendment 1, is further
amended in subsection (c) by inserting
‘‘Covered Amendments.—’’ before
‘‘Amendments’’; by striking ‘‘and 702’’;
and by inserting ‘‘702, and 706 as
amended by 711’’ before the period.
Reason for Amendment: This
amendment expands the listing in
§ 1B1.10(c) to implement the directive
in 28 U.S.C. 994(u) with respect to
guideline amendments that may be
considered for retroactive application.
The Commission has determined that
Amendment 706, as amended by
Amendment 711, should be applied
retroactively because the applicable
standards set forth in the background
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:55 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
commentary to § 1B1.10 (Reduction in
Term of Imprisonment as a Result of
Amended Guideline Range) appear to be
met. Specifically: (1) As stated in the
reason for amendment accompanying
Amendment 706, the purpose of that
amendment was to alleviate some of the
urgent and compelling problems
associated with the penalty structure for
crack cocaine offenses; (2) the
Commission’s analysis of cases
potentially eligible for retroactive
application of Amendment 706
(available on the Commission’s Web site
at https://www.ussc.gov) indicates that
the number of cases potentially
involved is substantial, and the
magnitude of the change in the
guideline range, i.e., two levels, is not
difficult to apply in individual cases;
and (3) the Commission received
persuasive written comment and
testimony at its November 13, 2007
public hearing on retroactivity that the
administrative burdens of applying
Amendment 706 retroactively are
manageable. In addition, public safety
will be considered in every case because
§ 1B1.10, as amended by Amendment
712, requires the court, in determining
whether and to what extent a reduction
in the defendant’s term of imprisonment
is warranted, to consider the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person
or the community that may be posed by
such a reduction.
[FR Doc. E7–25483 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
pursuant to loan agreements with the
foreign owners or custodians. I also
determine that the exhibition or display
of the exhibit objects at the National
Gallery of Art, Washington, DC from on
or about May 25, 2008, until on or about
September 7, 2008; the Asian Art
Museum of San Francisco from on or
about October 17, 2008, to on or about
January 25, 2009; The Museum of Fine
Arts, Houston, from on or about
February 22, 2009, to on or about May
17, 2009: and The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, from on or
about June 15, 2009, to on or about
September 20, 2009, and at possible
additional exhibitions or venues yet to
be determined, is in the national
interest. Public Notice of these
Determinations is ordered to be
published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, including a list of
the exhibit objects, contact Carol B.
Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
(telephone: 202/453–8048). The address
is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301
4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington,
DC 20547–0001.
Dated: December 19, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department
of State.
[FR Doc. E7–25519 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
BILLING CODE 2211–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6050]
[Public Notice 6049]
Culturally Significant Objects Imported
for Exhibition Determinations:
‘‘Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures From
the National Museum, Kabul’’
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
following determinations: Pursuant to
the authority vested in me by the Act of
October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C.
2459), Executive Order 12047 of March
27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et
seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of
October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority
No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as
amended, and Delegation of Authority
No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875],
I hereby determine that the objects to be
included in the exhibition
‘‘Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from
the National Museum, Kabul’’, imported
from abroad for temporary exhibition
within the United States, are of cultural
significance. The objects are imported
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Culturally Significant Objects Imported
for Exhibition Determinations:
‘‘Gustave Courbet’’
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
following determinations: Pursuant to
the authority vested in me by the Act of
October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C.
2459), Executive Order 12047 of March
27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et
seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of
October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority
No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as
amended, and Delegation of Authority
No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875],
I hereby determine that the objects to be
included in the exhibition ‘‘Gustave
Courbet,’’ imported from abroad for
temporary exhibition within the United
States, are of cultural significance. The
objects are imported pursuant to loan
agreements with the foreign owners or
custodians. I also determine that the
exhibition or display of the exhibit
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 217-220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25483]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
Sentencing Guidelines for the United States Courts
AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission.
ACTION: Notice of final action regarding amendments to Policy Statement
Sec. 1B1.10, effective March 3, 2008.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Sentencing Commission hereby gives notice of amendments to
a policy statement and commentary made pursuant to its authority under
28 U.S.C. 994(a) and (u). The Commission promulgated an amendment to
Policy Statement Sec. 1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a
Result of Amended Guideline Range) clarifying when, and to what extent,
a sentencing reduction is considered consistent with the policy
statement and therefore authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
The Commission also has reviewed amendments submitted to Congress
on May 1, 2007, that may result in a lower guideline range and has
designated Amendment 706, as amended by Amendment 711, for inclusion in
Policy Statement Sec. 1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied
retroactively.
DATES: The effective date of these policy statement and commentary
amendments is March 3, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Information
Officer, Telephone: (202) 502-4597.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Sentencing Commission is
an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States
Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy
statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a).
The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously
promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), and specifies in
what circumstances and by what amount sentences of imprisonment may be
reduced if the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended
in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense or category of
offenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(u).
Additional information may be accessed through the Commission's Web
site at https://www.ussc.gov.
Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (u).
Ricardo H. Hinojosa,
Chair.
1. Amendment: Chapter One, Part B, Subpart One, is amended by
striking Sec. 1B1.10 and its accompanying commentary and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 1B1.10. Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a
Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)
(a) Authority.--
(1) In General.--In a case in which a defendant is serving a term
of
[[Page 218]]
imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has
subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines
Manual listed in subsection (c) below, the court may reduce the
defendant's term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
As required by 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the
defendant's term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy
statement.
(2) Exclusions.--A reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore
is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) if--
(A) None of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable
to the defendant; or
(B) An amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.
(3) Limitation.--Consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full
resentencing of the defendant.
(b) Determination of Reduction in Term of Imprisonment.--
(1) In General.--In determining whether, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall
determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable
to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in
subsection (c) had been in effect at the time the defendant was
sentenced. In making such determination, the court shall substitute
only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced
and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.
(2) Limitations and Prohibition on Extent of Reduction.--
(A) In General.--Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court
shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the
minimum of the amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1)
of this subsection.
(B) Exception.--If the original term of imprisonment imposed was
less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range
applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction
comparably less than the amended guideline range determined under
subdivision (1) of this subsection may be appropriate. However, if the
original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence
determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be
appropriate.
(C) Prohibition.--In no event may the reduced term of imprisonment
be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served.
(c) Amendments covered by this policy statement are listed in
Appendix C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371, 379,
380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606,
657, and 702.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. Application of Subsection (a).--
(A) Eligibility.--Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c)
that lowers the applicable guideline range. Accordingly, a reduction in
the defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement if: (i)
None of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the
defendant; or (ii) an amendment listed in subsection (c) is applicable
to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering
the defendant's applicable guideline range because of the operation of
another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment).
(B) Factors for Consideration.--
(i) In General.--Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), the court
shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) in
determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction, but
only within the limits described in subsection (b).
(ii) Public Safety Consideration.--The court shall consider the
nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community
that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment in determining: (I) Whether such a reduction is warranted;
and (II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits
described in subsection (b).
(iii) Post-Sentencing Conduct.--The court may consider post-
sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of
the original term of imprisonment in determining: (I) Whether a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is warranted; and
(II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described
in subsection (b).
2. Application of Subsection (b)(1).--In determining the amended
guideline range under subsection (b)(1), the court shall substitute
only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced. All other guideline application decisions remain unaffected.
3. Application of Subsection (b)(2).--Under subsection (b)(2), the
amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) and the term
of imprisonment already served by the defendant limit the extent to
which the court may reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement. Specifically, if the
original term of imprisonment imposed was within the guideline range
applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, the court shall
not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment to a term that is less
than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline
range determined under subsection (b)(1). For example, in a case in
which: (A) The guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time
of sentencing was 41 to 51 months; (B) the original term of
imprisonment imposed was 41 months; and (C) the amended guideline range
determined under subsection (b)(1) is 30 to 37 months, the court shall
not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment to a term less than 30
months.
If the original term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term
of imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction comparably less than
the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) may be
appropriate. For example, in a case in which: (A) The guideline range
applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing was 70 to 87
months; (B) the defendant's original term of imprisonment imposed was
56 months (representing a downward departure of 20 percent below the
minimum term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable
to the defendant at the time of sentencing); and (C) the amended
guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) is 57 to 71 months,
a reduction to a term of imprisonment of 46 months (representing a
reduction of approximately 20 percent below the minimum term of
imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range determined under
subsection
[[Page 219]]
(b)(1)) would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate.
In no case, however, shall the term of imprisonment be reduced
below time served. Subject to these limitations, the sentencing court
has the discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to reduce
a term of imprisonment under this section.
4. Supervised Release.--
(A) Exclusion Relating to Revocation.--Only a term of imprisonment
imposed as part of the original sentence is authorized to be reduced
under this section. This section does not authorize a reduction in the
term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
(B) Modification Relating to Early Termination.--If the prohibition
in subsection (b)(2)(C) relating to time already served precludes a
reduction in the term of imprisonment to the extent the court
determines otherwise would have been appropriate as a result of the
amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1), the court
may consider any such reduction that it was unable to grant in
connection with any motion for early termination of a term of
supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(1). However, the fact that a
defendant may have served a longer term of imprisonment than the court
determines would have been appropriate in view of the amended guideline
range determined under subsection (b)(1) shall not, without more,
provide a basis for early termination of supervised release. Rather,
the court should take into account the totality of circumstances
relevant to a decision to terminate supervised release, including the
term of supervised release that would have been appropriate in
connection with a sentence under the amended guideline range determined
under subsection (b)(1).
Background: Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18, United States Code,
provides: `[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a
term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently
been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o),
upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment,
after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.'
This policy statement provides guidance and limitations for a court
when considering a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and implements 28
U.S.C. 994(u), which provides: `If the Commission reduces the term of
imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular
offense or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances
and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of
imprisonment for the offense may be reduced.'
Among the factors considered by the Commission in selecting the
amendments included in subsection (c) were the purpose of the
amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by
the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment
retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under subsection
(b)(1).
The listing of an amendment in subsection (c) reflects policy
determinations by the Commission that a reduced guideline range is
sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing and that, in the sound
discretion of the court, a reduction in the term of imprisonment may be
appropriate for previously sentenced, qualified defendants. The
authorization of such a discretionary reduction does not otherwise
affect the lawfulness of a previously imposed sentence, does not
authorize a reduction in any other component of the sentence, and does
not entitle a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter
of right.
The Commission has not included in this policy statement amendments
that generally reduce the maximum of the guideline range by less than
six months. This criterion is in accord with the legislative history of
28 U.S.C. 994(u) (formerly section 994(t)), which states: `It should be
noted that the Committee does not expect that the Commission will
recommend adjusting existing sentences under the provision when
guidelines are simply refined in a way that might cause isolated
instances of existing sentences falling above the old guidelines* or
when there is only a minor downward adjustment in the guidelines. The
Committee does not believe the courts should be burdened with
adjustments in these cases.' S. Rep. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 180
(1983).
*So in original. Probably should be `to fall above the amended
guidelines'.''.
Reason for Amendment: This amendment makes a number of
modifications to *1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result
of Amended Guideline Range) to clarify when, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is consistent with
the policy statement and is therefore authorized under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2).
The amendment modifies subsection (a) to state the statutory
requirement under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) that a reduction in the
defendant's term of imprisonment be consistent with the policy
statement. The amendment also modifies subsection (a) to state that,
consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)
do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.
In addition, the amendment amends subsection (a) to clarify
circumstances in which a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is not consistent with the policy statement and therefore
is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Specifically, the
amendment provides that a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is not consistent with Sec. 1B1.10 and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) if (1) none of the amendments
listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant; or (2) an
amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering
the defendant's applicable guideline range. Application Note 1 provides
further explanation that an amendment may be listed in subsection (c)
but not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable
guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or
statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment). In such a case, a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is not consistent with Sec. 1B1.10 and therefore is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
The amendment modifies subsection (b) to clarify the limitations on
the extent to which a court may reduce the defendant's term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 582(c)(2) and Sec. 1B1.10. Specifically,
in subsection (b)(1) the amendment provides that, in determining
whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant's term of
imprisonment is warranted, the court shall determine the amended
guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the
amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c) had been in
effect at the time the defendant was sentenced, substituting only the
amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline
provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and
leaving all other guideline application decisions unaffected.
In subsection (b)(2) the amendment provides further clarification
that the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment to
a term that is
[[Page 220]]
less than the minimum of the amended guideline range, except if the
original term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the
defendant at the time of sentencing, a reduction comparably less than
the amended guideline range may be appropriate. However, if the
original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence
determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be
appropriate. The amendment clarifies that in no event may the reduced
term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the
defendant has already served. The amendment adds in Application Note 3
examples illustrating the limitations on the extent to which a court
may reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2) and Sec. 1B1.10.
The amendment also modifies Application Note 1 to delineate more
clearly factors for consideration by the court in determining whether,
and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment
is warranted under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Specifically, the amendment
provides that the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. 3553(a), as required by 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), and the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be
posed by such a reduction, but only within the limits described in
subsection (b). In addition, the amendment provides that the court may
consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after
imposition of the original term of imprisonment, but only within the
limits described in subsection (b).
The amendment makes conforming changes and adds headings to the
application notes, and makes conforming changes to the background
commentary.
2. Amendment: Section 1B1.10, as amended by Amendment 1, is further
amended in subsection (c) by inserting ``Covered Amendments.--'' before
``Amendments''; by striking ``and 702''; and by inserting ``702, and
706 as amended by 711'' before the period.
Reason for Amendment: This amendment expands the listing in Sec.
1B1.10(c) to implement the directive in 28 U.S.C. 994(u) with respect
to guideline amendments that may be considered for retroactive
application. The Commission has determined that Amendment 706, as
amended by Amendment 711, should be applied retroactively because the
applicable standards set forth in the background commentary to Sec.
1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended
Guideline Range) appear to be met. Specifically: (1) As stated in the
reason for amendment accompanying Amendment 706, the purpose of that
amendment was to alleviate some of the urgent and compelling problems
associated with the penalty structure for crack cocaine offenses; (2)
the Commission's analysis of cases potentially eligible for retroactive
application of Amendment 706 (available on the Commission's Web site at
https://www.ussc.gov) indicates that the number of cases potentially
involved is substantial, and the magnitude of the change in the
guideline range, i.e., two levels, is not difficult to apply in
individual cases; and (3) the Commission received persuasive written
comment and testimony at its November 13, 2007 public hearing on
retroactivity that the administrative burdens of applying Amendment 706
retroactively are manageable. In addition, public safety will be
considered in every case because Sec. 1B1.10, as amended by Amendment
712, requires the court, in determining whether and to what extent a
reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is warranted, to
consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that may be posed by such a reduction.
[FR Doc. E7-25483 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2211-01-P