## Facts

- Freddie J. Booker was convicted in federal court of drug offenses, and the jury’s verdict authorized a Guidelines sentencing range of 210–262 months.
- At sentencing, the judge found additional facts by a preponderance of the evidence that increased the mandatory Guidelines range to 360 months to life, and imposed a 30-year sentence.
- In a companion federal case, the jury verdict authorized a Guidelines range of 0–78 months, but judge-found facts would have produced a range of 188–235 months.
- The sentencing judge in the companion case, relying on then-recent Sixth Amendment doctrine, declined to apply the Guidelines as mandatory and sentenced based only on the jury verdict.
- The court of appeals in Booker held the mandatory Guidelines system, as applied with judge-found enhancements, violated the Sixth Amendment and ordered resentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment permits mandatory sentencing enhancements under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on facts found by a judge, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant.
2. If the mandatory Guidelines scheme is unconstitutional, what statutory remedy is required, including whether provisions making the Guidelines binding should be severed.

## Decision

- The Court held that the Sixth Amendment applies to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when they are treated as mandatory.
- The Court ruled that, under the jury-trial rule of Apprendi and Blakely, the relevant maximum is the highest sentence a judge may impose based solely on facts found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
- Because the mandatory Guidelines required higher sentencing ranges based on judge-found facts, the scheme was unconstitutional as applied to Booker.
- As a remedy, the Court severed and excised the provisions that made the Guidelines mandatory and that required strong appellate enforcement of guideline compliance.
- After severance, the Guidelines remained operative as advisory; sentencing courts must consider them along with statutory sentencing factors, and appellate review is for reasonableness.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals judgment in Booker and remanded; it vacated and remanded the district court judgment in the companion case.

## Legal Principles

- Any fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the jury verdict or the defendant’s admissions must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted.
- A sentencing system violates the Sixth Amendment when it makes enhanced ranges legally binding based on judge-found facts.
- The appropriate remedy for the constitutional defect in the federal scheme was severance of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) (mandatory within-range requirement) and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (appellate review provisions enforcing mandatory compliance).
- Post-severance, district courts must consider the advisory Guidelines and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and appellate courts review sentences for reasonableness.

## Conclusion

The Court held that mandatory application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment when judge-found facts increased the legally authorized sentencing range, and it cured the defect by severing the provisions that made the Guidelines mandatory, leaving an advisory Guidelines system subject to reasonableness review.


United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)