## Facts

- Steven Spears was convicted in federal court of conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and at least 500 grams of powder cocaine.
- Using the Sentencing Guidelines’ 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio, the district court calculated an advisory range of 324 to 405 months (offense level 38; criminal history category IV).
- The district court concluded the 100:1 ratio produced a sentence greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Relying on the Sentencing Commission’s criticisms of the crack Guidelines and similar district court reasoning, the court recalculated the range using a 20:1 ratio (offense level 34; range 210 to 262 months).
- The district court imposed 240 months’ imprisonment, reflecting the statutory mandatory minimum.
- The Eighth Circuit twice reversed, holding the district court could not categorically reject the Guidelines’ crack/powder ratio and replace it with a different ratio.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether such a policy-based, categorical variance is permitted after Booker and Kimbrough.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court, applying advisory Guidelines after United States v. Booker, may categorically disagree with the crack-cocaine Guidelines’ 100:1 ratio as a matter of policy under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2. Whether that authority includes substituting an alternative crack/powder ratio (such as 20:1) in an ordinary crack case to determine the appropriate sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that sentencing courts may categorically reject the crack-cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with the 100:1 ratio.
- The Court further held that this discretion includes adopting a replacement ratio of the court’s own to calculate an appropriate variance under § 3553(a), even in a mine-run case.
- Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, warning that across-the-board adoption of judge-selected ratios risks unwarranted sentencing disparities and that Kimbrough did not clearly authorize categorical substitution.

## Legal Principles

- Because the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, a district court may vary from a Guidelines range based on a policy disagreement with the Guideline itself, not merely case-specific circumstances.
- Under Kimbrough, a court may conclude that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence greater than necessary to satisfy § 3553(a), including in an ordinary case.
- The authority to vary on policy grounds necessarily includes the authority to reject the Guidelines’ crack/powder ratio and substitute a different ratio when determining the sentence, subject to appellate review for reasonableness.
- Sentencing Commission reports and stated criticisms of the crack Guidelines may support a court’s policy disagreement and resulting variance.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that, after Booker and Kimbrough, a district court may categorically reject the Guidelines’ 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio on policy grounds and may substitute an alternative ratio, so long as the resulting sentence is justified under § 3553(a) and is reasonable.


Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009)