Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia

DOJ Publications and Memos
	DOJ Electronic Evidence and Search and Seizure Legal Resources
	US Attorneys Manual
	US Attorneys Office Bulletin
	BOP Drug Treatment Center Chart 2006
	Naturalization Chart 2004
Training Material
	Office of Defender Services/Training Branch, Administrative Office of the United States Courts The Federal Public Defenders for the District of Oregon Search and Seizure Outline. Oct 2009

Blogs
	Sentencing Law and Policy
	On Snitches and CI's
	Appellate Litigation Blog
Computer Forensics
	Find out IP addresses, Who owns a website, etc...
	International Journal of Digital Evidence
	E-Evidence Information Center

Sentencing
	An Introduction to Federal Guideline Sentencing (12th ed. 2010)
	Selected Firearms Offenses - Cheat Sheet
	Supervised Release (DC) Table
	Firearms Offenses - Sentencing Enhancement based on prior conviction
	Reversible Errors 2009
	Federal Sentencing Grid
	The United States Sentencing Commission has released a new publication, Impact of Prior Minor Offenses on Eligibility for Safety Valve. This report provides an analysis of the role of convictions for prior minor offenses in the sentences of federal offenders. To view this publication, please click here
	Anomaly in the Crack Guidelines by Amy Baron-Evans Sentencing Resource Counsel Federal Public and Community Defenders. See their Sentencing Resource page
Crack Changes
	*Commission Clarifies Meaning of USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(B): Clients Who Received Non-Guideline Sentence Under Booker* Still Eligible for Crack Retroactivity Sentence Reduction - 2008** The amended guideline retroactivity policy statement, USSG §1B1.10, states at §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) that “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.” This appears to suggest that clients are not entitled to relief under the amendment if they received a non-guideline sentence under Booker. However, Sentencing Resource Counsel, as well as many Federal Defenders, report that at the Crack Summits in Charlotte and St. Louis, and at the Defender conference in Seattle, the Commission explained that §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) applies only if the original sentencing judge did not consider the guidelines at all. This acknowledgment is good news because there should be no instances in which judges ignored the guidelines. A sentencing judge must consider the guidelines, even if she then rejects them as unsound policy, and to do otherwise is reversible error. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596 (2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 564, 570 (2007); Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 2468 (2007); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245-46 (2005).
	Admendments to Guidelines (opens fd.org)
	Deconstructing the Guidelines is a special project undertaken by National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel. The papers in this section critically examine the history and basis of the most frequently encountered provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Judges are now invited to consider arguments that the guideline itself fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations, reflects an unsound judgment, does not treat defendant characteristics in the proper way, or that a different sentence is appropriate regardless. Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465, 2468 (2007). Judges "may vary [from Guidelines ranges] based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines," Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 570 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and when they do, the courts of appeals may not "grant greater factfinding leeway to [the Commission] than to [the] district judge." Rita , 127 S. Ct. at 2463. Whatever respect a guideline may deserve depends on whether the Commission acted in "the exercise of its characteristic institutional role." Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575. This role has two basic components: (1) reliance on empirical evidence of pre-guidelines sentencing practice, and (2) review and revision in light of judicial decisions, sentencing data, and comments from participants and experts in the field. Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2464-65. "Notably, not all of the Guidelines are tied to this empirical evidence." Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 n.2 (2007). When a guideline is not the product of "empirical data and national experience," it is not an abuse of discretion to conclude that it fails to achieve the § 3553(a)'s purposes, even in "a mine-run case." Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575.
Spanish
	Translation of legal terms/words used in Federal Court

Newsletters

Other	Fiscal year 2008 cost of supervision by probation and pretrial services officers as compared to the cost of incarceration and pretrial detention.

The Law Library

Back to top