## Facts

- Ducan Fanfan was indicted in the District of Maine for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- A jury convicted Fanfan; the verdict supported a Sentencing Guidelines range with a maximum of 78 months’ imprisonment.
- At sentencing, the district judge held an evidentiary hearing and found additional sentence-increasing facts by a preponderance of the evidence that would have produced a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months.
- After *Blakely v. Washington* was decided, the district court concluded that the federal Sentencing Guidelines could not be applied to increase Fanfan’s sentence based on judge-found facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt (other than prior convictions).
- The district court sentenced Fanfan within the range supported by the jury verdict (up to 78 months) and denied the government’s motion to correct the sentence.
- The United States appealed to the First Circuit and also sought Supreme Court review by petitioning for certiorari before judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated when a federal judge enhances a sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines based on facts (other than prior convictions) not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.
2. If so, whether severability principles require treating the Sentencing Guidelines as inapplicable (leaving the court to sentence within the statutory range) rather than applying them as written.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment in Fanfan and consolidated the case for briefing and argument with *United States v. Booker*.
- The Court’s action at this citation was procedural only; it did not resolve the Sixth Amendment or remedy questions on the merits in a separate opinion under this citation.
- The merits governing Fanfan were decided in the consolidated decision, which held that mandatory Guidelines enhancements based on judge-found facts violate the Sixth Amendment and that the remedy was to sever provisions making the Guidelines mandatory, leaving them advisory.

## Legal Principles

- The Supreme Court may grant certiorari before judgment in cases of exceptional importance, permitting review without awaiting a court of appeals decision.
- When cases present overlapping constitutional and remedial questions, the Court may consolidate them to resolve those questions in a single, coordinated review.
- In the consolidated merits disposition controlling this case’s sentencing framework: (1) a mandatory Guidelines system that increases a sentence based on judge-found facts beyond what the jury verdict alone authorizes violates the Sixth Amendment, and (2) the remedy is to render the Guidelines advisory by severing the provisions that made them mandatory.

## Conclusion

The Court’s order granted certiorari before judgment and consolidated Fanfan with *Booker* to address the constitutionality of federal Guidelines sentencing after *Blakely*; the controlling merits resolution was issued in the consolidated decision, which invalidated mandatory judge-found enhancements and made the Guidelines advisory.


United States v. Fanfan, 542 U.S. 956 (2004)