Chavez-Meza v. United States (17-5639)

argument 17-5639

Chavez-Meza v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Court’s view on judicial discretion and its limits?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next today in case 175639,

Michael T. Copperley 0:04

Chavez-Meza v. United States. Mr. Copperley? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, judicial discretion is not a whim. It is to be guided by sound legal principles and subject to meaningful appellate review. And if appellate review for abuse of discretion is to mean anything, it is axiomatic and that there must be a reason for the district court's decision apparent in the record. This is particularly true where Congress has channeled the exercise of a district court's discretion by directing the district court to consider certain factors when making a discretionary choice. As the court understood in Taylor, a district court in such circumstances must clearly articulate not only that it in fact, considered the relevant factors, but how those factors impacted its decision.

John G. Roberts 1:01

I suppose you're not arguing that that's true in every case. For example, if the record or the proceedings indicated exactly what the people were talking about, they were debating a particular point and that would explain it, that would be enough, right?

Michael T. Copperley 1:15

Mr. Chief Justice, we do believe that it would be enough. There's oftentimes, as the Court recognized in REDA, how much explanation a district court judge needs to give depends so much on circumstances and context. What

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:31

is the standard of review that the Court of Appeals uses for sentences?

Michael T. Copperley 1:39

Justice Ginsburg, it's reasonableness, which this Court understands in the original sentencing context.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:46

I thought that, doesn't the statute say, 3742, imposed in violation of law. The question is whether the sentence is imposed in violation of law.

Michael T. Copperley 1:59

Yes, Your Honor. And as the Court has understood from Booker through Rita through Gall, ultimately what that means is was the sentence reasonable? There's two components, the procedural reasonableness and substantive reasonableness. And ultimately, this Court has understood that what reasonableness means is, did the district court abuse its discretion?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:24

But how could that be if the district court sentenced within the guidelines, it wasn't the same range, it wasn't the same point within the guidelines as the original sentence, but it was still reasonable? Within the guidelines. So how could a within-the-guidelines sentence be imposed in violation of law?

Michael T. Copperley 2:48

Well, I think that's the government's position, which is, well, in a sentence reduction, when it's reduced and it falls within the guidelines, the government's position, as I understand it, is essentially that that decision is unreviewable. And we disagree with that proposition. No matter what, as the Court has made clear in Gall, the Within guideline sentences, outside guideline sentences, the district court has an obligation to explain the reason for the sentence. And that holds, we believe, in the sentence reduction context of 3582C2. How

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3:25

much of an explanation would— would be required. Take this very case. What explanation would have sufficed?

Michael T. Copperley 3:35

Your Honor, we believe what would have sufficed. I don't want to prejudge the case and tell the district court. I don't want to presume what the district court was thinking because that's the whole point is we simply don't know. And so what we're asking is for the court to apply the rule that is already applied in Rita and Gall. And that's simply sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate

Stephen G. Breyer 3:58

review. Suppose a case, not this case, suppose a case where the judge sentenced to the middle of the old guideline range, then the new guideline range comes out and he does the middle of that. Explanation required?

Michael T. Copperley 4:10

In a typical case, Your Honor, I think in that situation, that would be what we're calling a proportional reduction. All things considered, that would be, it could be inferred from the record why the judge did what he did. However, I think there are certain circumstances in that particular situation where the judge might need to provide more explanation, and that would be where either party, either the defendant or the government, had made non-frivolous arguments as to why there needed to be something different.