Commission hearing reveals sharp divisions over career‑offender overhaul and circuit‑conflict fixes

The United States Sentencing Commission heard extended testimony and questioning on proposed changes to the career‑offender guideline and related circuit‑conflict amendments, with witnesses sharply divided over how to balance fairness, administrability and public safety.

Robert Zozma, chief of appeals at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, told commissioners the Justice Department supports a list‑based federal definition for crimes of violence and careful cross‑references to capture serious conduct. He argued the categorical approach has led to inconsistent results across states and urged a comprehensive federal statute list so truly violent offenses are uniformly treated. “The list included in the commission's proposal is only a helpful start,” Zozma said, urging the commission to add statutes that address murder, robbery and similar conduct.

Shelley Feit, deputy director of the Sentencing Resource Council for Federal Public and Community Defenders, countered that the career‑offender guideline already produces “astronomical sentencing ranges” for many nonviolent, drug‑only defendants — disproportionately Black men in many districts — and that eliminating state drug priors would simplify the rule and reduce unfair outcomes. Feit told the commission that in many districts judges regularly impose below‑guideline sentences in career‑offender cases; in the Northern District of Illinois, for example, only about 7.5% of career‑offender cases received within‑guideline sentences in recent years.

Advisory groups and probation representatives split. The Practitioners Advisory Group favored retaining the categorical approach or, if abandoned, recommended a label/list option to minimize new litigation; several probation representatives argued a tiered, conduct‑based structure could make application clearer and better reflect the scope of organized operations. Commissioners pressed witnesses on practical questions including whether the relevant comparison for state offenses should be the law at the time of the prior conviction or the time of current sentencing; witnesses warned both approaches can create odd, arbitrary outcomes (for example, where federal descheduling of a substance leaves unchanged state statutes).

Several witnesses urged additional data analysis before sweeping changes. Judge Edmund Chang, representing the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference, told the commission that while an introductory commentary reminding judges of non‑incarcerative options could be useful, adding a prescriptive step‑by‑step 5A1.1(b) or steep zone expansions risks procedural burden and litigation. He also recommended examining how many defendants currently occupy the proposed expanded zone cells before adopting major changes.

The commission sought to reconcile competing priorities: DOJ stressed consistent application and the need to hold serious recidivists accountable, while defenders and practitioner groups emphasized excessive ranges, geographic disparities, and the administrative costs of fact‑finding requirements. Several advisory groups recommended targeted changes — for example, narrowing which state priors qualify, clarifying divisibility and mens rea rules, and using sentence‑imposed thresholds rather than time served where records are inconsistent.

Next steps: commissioners closed by reminding participants the written comment period remains open through March 18 and said staff will analyze testimony alongside the commission’s empirical reports. No formal votes were taken at the hearing.