Order

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL 1402697 (U.S. June 24, 2004), has given rise to inconsistent sentencing practices in federal courts.  The Circuit Courts that have addressed the issue are split as to whether Blakely applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. U.S. v. Harris, 03-5256 (6th Cir. July 14, 2004); U.S. v. Pineiro, No. 03-30437 (5th Cir. July 12, 2004); U.S. v. Booker, No-CR-026-S-01 (7th Cir. July 9, 2004).  The Second Circuit has certified the question to the United States Supreme Court.  U.S. v. Penaranda, No. 03-1055(L) & U.S. v. Rojas, No. 03-1062(L) (2d Cir. July 12, 2004).  Further, those courts finding that Blakely does apply to the Guidelines have taken different approaches to sentencing postBlakely.  See, e.g., U.S. v. Croxford, 2:02-cr-00302PGC (D. Utah June 29, 2004); U.S. v. Shamblin, 2004 WL 1468561 (S.D. W. Va. June 20, 2004).  This court, and several other district courts, have concluded that the Guidelines remain the law in sentencing matters to the extent that they can be applied in a manner consistent with Blakely .  See, e.g., U.S. v. Shamblin, 2004 WL 1468561; U.S. v. Toro, 3:02-cr-362 (D. Conn. July 8, 2004); U.S. v. Montgomery, 2:03-cr-801 (D. Utah July 8, 2001). Some district courts, however, have found that Blakely renders the Guideline scheme unconstitutional in its entirety.  See, e.g., U.S. v. Medas, 2004 Dist. LEXIS 12135 (July 1, 2004); U.S. v. Croxford, 2:02-cr-00302PGC.