Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > RESOURCE CENTER > The War on Drugs - and the results of it
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

The War on Drugs - and the results of it A war against drugs, or against families?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-09-2011, 04:21 PM
habeasattorney habeasattorney is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Default Retroactive changes to crack laws?

A ray of hope for anyone who has a loved one serving time on a Federal Crack Charge:

Thursday, May 05, 2011

USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines

As detailed in this document described as a "Reader-Friendly Version of the Commission's Request for Comment on Retroactivity," the US Sentencing Commission is now requesting public comment by June 2, 2011, concerning "whether Amendment 2 [of its most recent set of Guideline amendments sent to Congress], pertaining to drug offenses, should be included as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants." Here is more background and details from this document:
On April 28, 2011, the Commission submitted to the Congress amendments to the sentencing guidelines and official commentary, which become effective on November 1, 2011, unless Congress acts to the contrary. Such amendments and the reasons for amendment subsequently were published in the Federal Register. See 76 FR 24960 (May 3, 2011).
Amendment 2, pertaining to drug offenses, has the effect of lowering guideline ranges.... The Commission seeks comment regarding whether, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), this amendment, or any part thereof, should be included in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants.
The Commission also requests comment regarding whether, if it amends §1B1.10(c) to include this amendment, it also should amend §1B1.10 to provide guidance to the courts on the procedure to be used when applying an amendment retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)....
Amendment 2, pertaining to drug offenses, contains three parts. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should list the entire amendment, or one or more parts of the amendment, in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants.
Part A changes the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This has the effect of lowering guideline ranges for certain defendants for offenses involving crack cocaine.
Part B contains both mitigating and aggravating provisions for offenses involving drugs, regardless of drug type. The mitigating provisions have the effect of lowering guideline ranges for certain defendants in drug cases, and the aggravating provisions have the effect of raising guideline ranges for certain defendants in drug cases.
Part C deletes the cross reference in §2D2.1(b)(1) under which an offender who possessed more than 5 grams of crack cocaine was sentenced under §2D1.1. This has the effect of lowering guideline ranges for certain defendants for offenses involving simple possession of crack cocaine.
For each of these three parts, the Commission requests comment on whether that part should be listed in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied retroactively....
If the Commission does list the entire amendment, or one or more parts of the amendment, in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 as an amendment that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants, should the Commission provide further guidance or limitations regarding the circumstances in which and the amount by which sentences may be reduced?
This is From the "Sentencing Typepad" blog, which has a link to the Commission's Request For Comments. I can't post the link on here.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to habeasattorney For This Useful Post:
Kitoko Lona (12-12-2011), Southerngirl71 (07-08-2011)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-05-2011, 09:38 PM
eb2009's Avatar
eb2009 eb2009 is offline
Failures=Success???
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: dallas, tx.
Posts: 275
Thanks: 74
Thanked 97 Times in 61 Posts
Default

EMAIL ON RETROACTIVITY
I have great news! The U.S. Sentencing Commission just voted to make retroactive last year's changes to the crack sentencing guidelines!

As a result of today's vote, an estimated 12,040 will be eligible to ask the court for reduced sentences. Average sentence reductions are expected to be 37 months.

I wish you all could have been there with the dozens of FAMM members and me when the Commission tallied its vote this afternoon. The feeling of justice being done was palpable.

My heart is filled with gratitude today for everyone who helped us win this great victory, which would have seemed unthinkable just five years ago. I am so thankful to the tens of thousands of you who wrote to the Commission, shared your personal stories, and encouraged FAMM over the years.

I am grateful to the members of the Sentencing Commission who responded to facts, not fear.

And I am proud of our spirited team at FAMM that works hard every day to restore fairness and common sense to our nation's sentencing laws.

On a personal note, I want to tell you this: Last year, when Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, I had very mixed feelings. As I wrote to you then, I was thrilled to get rid of the 100:1 disparity, but I thought it was cruel not to provide relief to those already serving excessive sentences. But I knew we had to take what we could get and then

keep fighting... and keep fighting... and keep fighting!

Now we have won the first half of crack sentencing retroactivity: The crack sentencing guideline has been made retroactive. We will now turn our attention to Congress to try to persuade it to make crack cocaine mandatory minimum sentences retroactive, too.

But for today, I am absolutely thrilled that 12,040 individuals -- including many, many FAMM members -- will benefit from the Commission's action.

What a great day!

My best,

Julie


Julie Stewart
FAMM President and Founder
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-12-2011, 12:32 AM
bmichelle05 bmichelle05 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: PA USA
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

What about an X pill charge since cocaine is in them? Have no idea but thought I'd ask! thanks!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 AM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics