[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58564-58565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24201]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION


Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts

AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In July 2011, the Commission published a notice of possible 
policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2012. See 76 FR 
45007 (July 17, 2011). After reviewing public comment received pursuant 
to the notice of proposed priorities, the Commission has identified its 
policy priorities for the upcoming amendment cycle and hereby gives 
notice of these policy priorities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Doherty, Office of Legislative 
and Public Affairs, 202-502-4502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Sentencing Commission is 
an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States 
Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy 
statements for Federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). 
The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously 
promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits 
guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of 
May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
    As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze 
sentencing issues, including operation of the Federal sentencing 
guidelines, the Commission has identified its policy priorities for the 
amendment cycle ending May 1, 2012. The Commission recognizes, however, 
that other factors, such as the enactment of any legislation requiring 
Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work 
on any or all of its identified priorities by the statutory deadline of 
May 1, 2012. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on any 
or all of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1, 
2012.
    As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following 
priorities:
    (1) Continuation of its work on statutory mandatory minimum 
penalties, including (A) its study of and, pursuant to the directive in 
section 4713 of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act of 2009, Public Law 111-84, report to Congress on 
statutory mandatory minimum penalties, including a review of the 
operation of the ``safety valve'' provision at 18 U.S.C. 3553(e); and 
(B) its study of and, pursuant to the directive in section 107(b) of 
the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 
2010, Public Law 111-195, report to Congress regarding violations of 
section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 
287c(a)), sections 38, 39, and 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
U.S.C. 2778, 2779, and 2780), and the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 
U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.).
    (2) Continuation of its work on implementation of the directives in 
section 1079A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, regarding securities fraud offenses 
and fraud offenses relating to financial institutions or Federally 
related mortgage loans; and implementation of any other crime 
legislation enacted during the 111th or 112th Congress warranting a 
Commission response.
    (3) Continuation of its work with the congressional, executive, and 
judicial branches of government, and other interested parties, to study 
the manner in which United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and 
subsequent Supreme Court decisions have affected Federal sentencing 
practices, the appellate review of those practices, and the role of the 
Federal sentencing guidelines. The Commission anticipates that it will 
issue a report with respect to its findings, possibly including (A) An 
evaluation of the impact of those decisions on the Federal sentencing 
guideline system; (B) development of recommendations for legislation 
regarding Federal sentencing policy; (C) an evaluation of the appellate 
standard of review applicable to post-Booker Federal sentencing 
decisions; and (D) possible consideration of amendments to the Federal 
sentencing guidelines.
    (4) Continuation of its multi-year review of Sec.  2D1.1 (Unlawful 
Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including 
Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or 
Conspiracy) and possible consideration of amendments to the Federal 
sentencing guidelines for drug offenses.
    (5) Continuation of its review of child pornography offenses and 
report to Congress as a result of such review. It is anticipated that 
any such report would include (A) A review of the incidence of, and 
reasons for, departures and variances from the guideline sentence; (B) 
a compilation of studies on, and analysis of, recidivism by child 
pornography offenders; and (C) possible recommendations to Congress on 
any statutory changes that may be appropriate.
    (6) Continuation of its multi-year study of the statutory and 
guideline definitions of ``crime of violence'', ``aggravated felony'', 
``violent felony'', and ``drug trafficking offense'', including (A) 
Possible consideration of an amendment to specify the types of 
documents to be considered under the ``categorical approach'', see 
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); Shepard v. United States, 
544 U.S. 13 (2005), for determining the applicability of guideline 
enhancements; (B) an examination of relevant circuit conflicts 
regarding whether any offense is categorically a ``crime of violence'', 
``aggravated felony'', ``violent felony'', or ``drug trafficking 
offense'' for purposes of triggering an enhanced sentence under certain 
Federal statutes and guidelines; and (C) possible report to Congress 
making recommendations on any statutory changes that may be appropriate 
to relevant statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. 1326.
    (7) Continuation of its review of departures within the guidelines, 
including provisions in Parts H and K of Chapter Five of the Guidelines 
Manual, and the extent to which pertinent statutory provisions 
prohibit, discourage, or encourage certain factors as forming the basis 
for departure from the guideline sentence.
    (8) Continuation of its multi-year review of the guidelines and 
their application to human rights offenses, including genocide under 18 
U.S.C. 1091, war crimes under 18 U.S.C. 2441, torture and maiming to 
commit torture under 18 U.S.C. 2340A and 114, respectively, and child 
soldier offenses under 18 U.S.C. 2442, and possible promulgation of 
guidelines or guideline amendments with respect to these offenses.
    (9) Resolution of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission's 
continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) 
and Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991), to resolve 
conflicting interpretations of the guidelines by the Federal courts.

[[Page 58565]]

    (10) Consideration of (A) Sec.  5K2.19 (Post-Sentencing 
Rehabilitative Efforts) (Policy Statement) in light of Pepper v. United 
States, 131 S.Ct. 1229 (March 2, 2011); (B) whether to provide a 
specific reference for N-Benzylpiperazine (BZP) in the Drug Quantity 
Table in Sec.  2D1.1; and (C) any other miscellaneous guideline 
application issues coming to the Commission's attention from case law 
and other sources.

    Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and 
Procedure 5.2.

Patti B. Saris,
Chair.
 [FR Doc. 2011-24201 Filed 9-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-40-P