October Term 2015 · Docket 14-8913
Does a sentencing error require proof of harm?
The dispute centers on whether a defendant must prove that a sentencing guideline error changed their sentence.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case argues that a presumption of harm lacks support in precedent.
The government argues that the Guidelines remain central to federal sentencing.
Justice Alito questioned the allocation of the burden of persuasion in specific scenarios.
Justice Sotomayor challenged the distinction between general and specific evidence.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 52-22 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 52-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 36-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-46 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 12-24 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 12-24
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks if a court error in calculating sentencing guidelines automatically invalidates a sentence. the side that brought the case argues the error is not automatically harmful. The government argues the error is presumptively harmful.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 12, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to reject the presumption that guideline errors are always harmful.
The government wants the Court to treat guideline errors as automatically prejudicial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that plain error review does not support a presumption of harm.
The government argues that the Guidelines are central to federal sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the burden of persuasion shifts to the prosecution when evidence is absent.
Justice Sotomayor asked why the side that brought the case labels certain evidence as general rather than specific.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 52-22 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 52-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 36-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-46 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 12-24 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 12-24
Why it matters
This case defines the standard for reviewing sentencing calculations. It determines how courts handle errors in federal sentencing guidelines. The outcome shapes the rights of defendants in federal courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 52-22 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 52-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 36-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-46 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 12-24 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 12-24
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 42-20 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 42-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-50
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.