Claiborne v. United States

In the Claiborne v. United States case Mario Claiborne had previously plead guilty to two drug crimes pertaining to the distribution of cocaine, and was convicted of said crimes: receiving a fifteen month sentence. According to federal regulations, Claiborne was eligible to receive a sentence from thirty-seven to forty-six months: a great deal more time than the fifteen month sentence that Claiborne actually received. The case was appealed by the United States based on the fact that Claiborne's sentence was considered too lenient and therefore was unreasonable. The case was brought before the Eighth Circuit Court that concurred with the argument that the sentence Claiborne was given was too light and that the ruling was a significant variance without remarkable circumstances. In fact, the sentence that Claiborne received was sixty percent lower than the expected sentence for the crimes in question.

According to a standard set forth by the Supreme Court in 2005 in United States v. Booker, the United States Supreme Court was expected to back federal sentences if guidelines were not compulsory and appellate courts were allowed to reassess sentences if and only if the basis for such sentences were under the question of reasonability. Claiborne's sentence was deemed rather unreasonable, having a downward variation of twenty-two years less than the least possible sentence for his crimes. Ironically, Claiborne died on May 30, 2007 before a decision could be made and on June 4, 2007 the decision offered by the Eight Circuit Court was deemed moot.

Click here to learn more about Debra Wabnik of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg