Cite as: 518 U. S. 120 (1996)
Syllabus
government . . . the court may depart from the guidelines," while its Application Note 1 declares that "[u]nder circumstances set forth in . . . § 3553(e) and . . . § 994(n) . . . substantial assistance . . . may justify a sentence below a statutorily required minimum sentence." One of the circumstances set forth in § 3553(e) is that the Government has authorized the court to impose such a sentence. The Government is correct that the relevant statutory provisions merely charge the Commission with constraining the district court's discretion in choosing a specific sentence once the Government has moved for a departure below the statutory minimum, not with "implementing" § 3553(e)'s motion requirement, and that § 5K1.1 does not improperly attempt to dispense with or modify that requirement. Pp. 124-130. (b) For two reasons, the Court need not decide whether the Government is correct in reading § 994(n) to permit the Commission to construct a unitary motion system by providing that the district court may depart below the Guidelines range only when the Government is willing to authorize the court to depart below the statutory minimum, if the court finds that to be appropriate. First, even if the Commission had done so, that would not help petitioner, since the Government has not authorized a departure below the statutory minimum here. Second, the Commission has not adopted this type of unitary system. Pp. 130-131. 55 F. 3d 130, affirmed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, and in which O'Connor and Breyer, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 131. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 132. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which O'Connor, J., joined, post, p. 132.
Patrick A. Mullin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Dav id Zlotnick and Peter Goldberger.
Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.*
*Alan I. Horowitz, James R. Lovelace, and Barbara E. Bergman filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Chester M. Keller filed a brief for the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in New Jersey as amicus curiae.
121
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007