138 Easy Mitigating Factors
Michael Levine keeps improving his resource containing case law on virtually every mitigating sentencing factor available under both the Guidelines and Booker. What started as a modest "88 Easy Departures" is now "138 Easy Mitigating Factors." It is available directly from Mr. Levine, at MichaelLevineESQ@aol.com. The cost for the latest update is $100. The cost for an annual subscription (9-12 issues depending on developments) is $350.
Here are just the first few topics included:
Some Useful Observations on Mitigating Factors1. The advisory guideline is too harsh, is “greater than necessary,” and the purpose of sentencing is satisfied by a sentence below the guidelines1A. The sentence violates the “parsimony provision” because a lesser sentence is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing
2. Sentence too long for the offense does not promote respect for the law, but the opposite
2A. The Guideline range makes no sense
3. The advisory guideline, calculated by a preponderance standard, is too high when compared to guideline calculated by standard of beyond a reasonable doubt
4. Even though mitigating factor does not qualify for traditional downward departure, or defense prohibited from seeking departure, court may still use factor to sentence below advisory range
5. Criminal conduct atypical and outside heartland of the guidelines
5A. Probation office recommends below-guideline sentence
6. Lack of knowledge or criminal intent or mens rea
7. Amount of drugs distributed overstated the defendant’s culpability because the drugs were distributed over a lengthy period of time
8. Downward adjustment for role in the offense is inadequate to show defendant’s peripheral involvement
9. Defendant had no knowledge of or control over amount or purity of drugs he delivered
10. Defendant is just an addict who delivered small quantities
11. The drugs were of very low purity
12. The disparity between crack and powder cocaine
13. The government controls the offense level by deciding quantity of drugs to order
14. Chapter Four enhancements of offense level (Career Offender designation and 851 prior) results in unfair compounding of sentence
Here are just the first few topics included:
Some Useful Observations on Mitigating Factors1. The advisory guideline is too harsh, is “greater than necessary,” and the purpose of sentencing is satisfied by a sentence below the guidelines1A. The sentence violates the “parsimony provision” because a lesser sentence is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing
2. Sentence too long for the offense does not promote respect for the law, but the opposite
2A. The Guideline range makes no sense
3. The advisory guideline, calculated by a preponderance standard, is too high when compared to guideline calculated by standard of beyond a reasonable doubt
4. Even though mitigating factor does not qualify for traditional downward departure, or defense prohibited from seeking departure, court may still use factor to sentence below advisory range
5. Criminal conduct atypical and outside heartland of the guidelines
5A. Probation office recommends below-guideline sentence
6. Lack of knowledge or criminal intent or mens rea
7. Amount of drugs distributed overstated the defendant’s culpability because the drugs were distributed over a lengthy period of time
8. Downward adjustment for role in the offense is inadequate to show defendant’s peripheral involvement
9. Defendant had no knowledge of or control over amount or purity of drugs he delivered
10. Defendant is just an addict who delivered small quantities
11. The drugs were of very low purity
12. The disparity between crack and powder cocaine
13. The government controls the offense level by deciding quantity of drugs to order
14. Chapter Four enhancements of offense level (Career Offender designation and 851 prior) results in unfair compounding of sentence
posted by Anonymous at 8:51 AM
<< Home