762
Breyer, J., dissenting
difference in the maximum possible term is an "unwarranted disparity." Insofar as prosecutors, as a practical matter, may be able to determine whether a particular defendant will be subject to the enhanced statutory maximum, any such discretion would be similar to the discretion a prosecutor exercises when he decides what, if any, charges to bring against a criminal suspect. Such discretion is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate, so long as it is not based upon improper factors. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 464-465 (1996); Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607 (1985). Any disparity in the maximum statutory penalties between defendants who do and those who do not receive the notice is a foreseeable— but hardly improper—consequence of the statutory notice requirement.6
III
In sum, we hold that the phrase "at or near the maximum term authorized" is unambiguous and requires a court to sentence a career offender "at or near" the "maximum" prison term available once all relevant statutory sentencing enhancements are taken into account. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
The United States Sentencing Commission has interpreted three statutory words—the words "maximum term authorized"—to mean "maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense of conviction . . . not including . . . sentencing enhancement provision[s]" for recidivists. 28 U. S. C.
6 Inasmuch as we find the statute at issue here unambiguous, we need not decide whether the Commission is owed deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984).
Page: Index Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007