Rutherford v. United States · ¶113

Those fears are unfounded. A judge's policy disagreement with a statutory mandatory minimum is not, and has never been, a relevant consideration at sentencing. Although district courts may disagree with the nonbinding Sentencing Guidelines “ `based solely on policy considerations,' ” they are “constrained by the mandatory minimums Congress prescribed” by statute regardless of their policy views. Kimbrough, 552 U. S., at 101, 108; see United States v. Fanfan, 558 F. 3d 105, 110, n. 6 (CA1 2009) (“Though district courts may sentence based on policy disagreements with the . . . guidelines, they may not do so on the basis of disagreements with statutes”); see also § 3553(e) (providing “[l]imited authority” for a court to “impose a sentence below a statutory minimum”); §3553(f) (permitting district courts to disregard a mandatory minimum for certain offenses only if five criteria are met).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.