United States v. Thompson
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
190 F.Supp.2d 138 (2002)
Facts
Thompson (defendant) pled guilty to distribution of crack cocaine and was sentenced by the district court in Thompson I, 74 F.Supp.2d 69 (D. Mass. 1999) to 60 months imprisonment, instead of 77 months, based on extraordinary family circumstances. In Thompson I, the district judge evaluated presentence reports (PSRs) of all defendants convicted of crack cocaine distribution and concluded that Thompson’s “extraordinary family circumstances” included growing up in housing projects, barely knowing his father who was in and out of prison, only being 24-years-old at the time of the sentencing, and had never before been incarcerated. Thompson had dropped out of high school when he got his girlfriend pregnant and subsequently had maintained solid employment to support his girlfriend-turned-fiancé until the day of his arrest on the drug charge. While in prison, Thompson was a model prisoner. He took every course available and did everything possible to better himself. Thompson’s 60-month sentence was vacated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Thompson II. There, the appellate court held that the proper approach to determine a sentence was for the district judge to compare any given defendant to all defendants and not those similarly situated with respect to the offense of conviction and remanded the matter to the district court for re-sentencing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gertner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
