[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 130 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 130

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to provide certainty 
        and fairness in sentencing, avoid unwarranted disparities among 
        defendants with similar records found guilty of similar offenses, and 
        maintain sufficient flexibility to permit individualized sentences when 
        warranted;
Whereas Congress established the United States Sentencing Commission as an 
        independent commission in the Judicial branch of the United States to 
        establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal 
        justice system that meet the purposes of sentencing and the core goals 
        of the Sentencing Reform Act;
Whereas Congress has prescribed both statutory minimum and statutory maximum 
        penalties for certain offenses and the Sentencing Reform Act authorizes 
        the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines and establish 
        sentencing ranges for the use of a sentencing court in determining a 
        sentence within the statutory minimum and maximum penalties prescribed 
        by Congress;
Whereas the statutory maximum penalty is the maximum penalty provided by the 
        statute defining the offense of conviction, including any applicable 
        statutory enhancements, and not the upper end of the guideline 
        sentencing range promulgated by the Sentencing Commission and determined 
        to be applicable to a particular defendant;
Whereas both Congress and the Sentencing Commission intended the Federal 
        Sentencing Guidelines to be applied as a cohesive and integrated whole, 
        and not in a piecemeal fashion;
Whereas in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), the Supreme Court of 
        the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform 
        Act and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines against separation-of-powers 
        and non-delegation challenges;
Whereas in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the Supreme Court held 
        that the sentencing guidelines of the State of Washington violated a 
        defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury;
Whereas despite Mistretta and numerous other Supreme Court opinions over the 
        past 15 years affirming the constitutionality of various aspects of the 
        Guidelines, the Blakely decision has raised concern about the continued 
        constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines;
Whereas the Blakely decision has created substantial confusion and uncertainty 
        in the Federal criminal justice system;
Whereas the lower Federal courts have reached inconsistent positions on the 
        applicability of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines;
Whereas there is a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to the 
        applicability of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the 
        Second Circuit Court of Appeals has certified the question to the 
        Supreme Court;
Whereas the orderly administration of justice in pending and resolved trials, 
        sentencings and plea negotiations has been affected by the uncertainty 
        surrounding the applicability of the Blakely decision to the Federal 
        Sentencing Guidelines;
Whereas the current confusion in the lower Federal courts has and will continue 
        to produce results that disserve the core principles underlying the 
        Sentencing Reform Act;
Whereas two and one-half weeks after the Supreme Court issued its decision in 
        Blakely, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing to consider 
        the implications of the decision for the Federal criminal justice 
        system; and
Whereas the Department of Justice, the Sentencing Commission, and others advised 
        the Committee that corrective legislation was not necessary at this 
        time, with the hope that the Supreme Court would clarify the 
        applicability of its Blakely decision to the Federal Sentencing 
        Guidelines in an expeditious manner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court of the United 
States should act expeditiously to resolve the current confusion and 
inconsistency in the Federal criminal justice system by promptly 
considering and ruling on the constitutionality of the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines.

            Passed the Senate July 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 130

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court of the United 
     States should act expeditiously to resolve the confusion and 
  inconsistency in the Federal criminal justice system caused by its 
       decision in Blakely v. Washington, and for other purposes.