Federal Sentencing Variances and Departures

Federal Sentencing Variances and Departures: How Josh Tomsheck of Hofland & Tomsheck Fights for Less Severe Sentences

In federal criminal cases, the sentencing phase can be just as critical as the trial itself. For individuals facing federal charges, the potential sentences outlined in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines can seem daunting. However, these guidelines are not set in stone. Federal courts allow for sentences that deviate from the guidelines through departures and variances—mechanisms that can significantly reduce a defendant’s sentence when effectively argued. If you or a loved one is facing federal sentencing, understanding these key distinctions and having the right defense attorney by your side is critical.

Josh Tomsheck, a Board-Certified criminal defense lawyer with Hofland & Tomsheck, has extensive experience in successfully advocating for departures and variances in federal sentencing cases. His deep knowledge of the law, combined with his ability to craft compelling arguments on behalf of his clients, makes him uniquely qualified to pursue less severe sentences, even in complex federal cases.

Understanding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Before diving into departures and variances, it’s important to understand how the Federal Sentencing Guidelines work. Created by the United States Sentencing Commission in the 1980s, these guidelines provide a framework for federal judges to determine the appropriate sentence for a defendant based on the offense level and the defendant’s criminal history. While the guidelines aim to promote consistency and fairness in sentencing, they are not mandatory. Judges have the discretion to impose sentences outside the guideline range under certain circumstances, using departures or variances.

• Departures: These are deviations from the sentencing guidelines based on specific factors already accounted for within the guidelines. These factors can include unique circumstances surrounding the offense or the defendant’s behavior.
• Variances: Unlike departures, variances are based on factors outside the guidelines. They are granted when a judge believes that a sentence within the guideline range does not meet the objectives of federal sentencing law, such as punishment, deterrence, or rehabilitation.

Josh Tomsheck’s deep understanding of how to argue for both departures and variances allows him to advocate for the most lenient sentences possible for his clients, often reducing years off a potential prison term.

Federal Sentencing Departures: Narrow Exceptions for Specific Circumstances

Departures occur when a judge imposes a sentence that falls outside the guideline range based on factors outlined within the guidelines themselves. These departures must be justified based on particular circumstances related to the crime, the defendant, or the legal process. Some common reasons for seeking downward departures (i.e., lighter sentences) include:

• Substantial Assistance to Authorities: One of the most well-known grounds for a downward departure is when the defendant provides significant help to law enforcement in prosecuting other criminals. This is often referred to as a 5K1.1 motion. For example, a defendant who cooperates with the government by testifying against a co-conspirator in a drug trafficking case may receive a sentence below the guideline range.
• Aberrant Behavior: In cases where a defendant’s actions appear to be an isolated incident rather than part of a pattern of behavior, judges may depart from the guidelines. This is especially relevant for first-time offenders who made a poor decision but are unlikely to re-offend.
• Family Circumstances: While family obligations are generally not considered in sentencing, there are instances where extraordinary family responsibilities may justify a departure. For instance, if a defendant is the sole caregiver for a seriously ill family member, a judge may impose a more lenient sentence.
• Diminished Capacity: A defendant with significantly impaired mental capacity at the time of the crime may receive a lighter sentence if the impairment contributed to the commission of the offense. However, this defense is typically reserved for non-violent offenders.

Federal Sentencing Variances: Judicial Discretion for Broader Considerations

Unlike departures, variances are not restricted to the factors listed in the sentencing guidelines. Instead, they allow judges to deviate from the guidelines based on broader considerations of justice, fairness, and the unique circumstances of each case. Variances are grounded in the judge’s application of the sentencing principles set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which outlines the goals of sentencing, including punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the offender.

Judges may grant variances for several reasons, including:

• Overarching Policy Considerations: Sometimes, a judge may feel that the guidelines do not adequately address the specific policy concerns surrounding a case. For instance, in cases involving drug offenses, a judge may feel that the guidelines for drug quantity overstate the defendant’s culpability, particularly in low-level drug offenses.
• Personal History and Characteristics of the Defendant: Judges may issue variances based on the defendant’s life circumstances, such as a history of trauma, abuse, or extraordinary contributions to their community. These factors are not directly accounted for in the guidelines but may impact a judge’s decision to impose a lighter sentence.
• Sentencing Disparities: If a defendant’s guideline sentence would result in an unwarranted sentencing disparity compared to similarly situated defendants, a variance may be granted. For example, if co-defendants who played similar roles in a crime receive vastly different guideline sentences, a variance may be appropriate to promote fairness.
• Post-Offense Rehabilitation: A defendant’s efforts to rehabilitate themselves after committing a crime can serve as grounds for a variance. This could include pursuing education, substance abuse treatment, or showing evidence of genuine remorse.

How Josh Tomsheck Fights for Departures and Variances

Josh Tomsheck has successfully argued for both departures and variances in federal court, often helping his clients secure significantly reduced sentences. His ability to navigate the intricacies of the sentencing guidelines, combined with his commitment to exploring every possible avenue for leniency, makes him a formidable advocate.

Here’s how Josh Tomsheck’s approach stands out:

• Thorough Investigation and Preparation: Sentencing hearings are complex legal proceedings that require thorough preparation. Josh Tomsheck meticulously reviews every detail of the case, including the defendant’s background, the facts of the crime, and the government’s evidence, to build a compelling argument for leniency. Whether he is seeking a departure based on cooperation or a variance due to unique life circumstances, Tomsheck ensures that no stone is left unturned.
• Compelling Mitigation Strategies: In federal sentencing cases, a key component of success is presenting mitigating factors that humanize the defendant and highlight the positive aspects of their character. Tomsheck works closely with his clients to understand their life stories and present a well-rounded picture to the court. This often involves gathering letters of support, expert testimony, and evidence of rehabilitation efforts.
• Effective Negotiation: Tomsheck is a skilled negotiator who often works with prosecutors and federal agents to secure departures based on his clients’ cooperation. His reputation for professionalism and his deep understanding of federal law enable him to negotiate favorable outcomes that can lead to significantly reduced sentences.
• Persuasive Advocacy in Court: When arguing for variances, Tomsheck’s courtroom advocacy shines. He articulates compelling arguments grounded in both the law and the unique facts of each case, persuading judges to deviate from the guidelines in favor of fairer and more just outcomes for his clients.

Why Choose Josh Tomsheck for Federal Sentencing Cases?

When facing federal sentencing, you need an attorney with the experience, knowledge, and dedication to fight for the best possible outcome. Josh Tomsheck, a Board-Certified criminal defense lawyer at Hofland & Tomsheck, has a proven track record of successfully securing departures and variances for his clients.

• Expertise in Federal Sentencing: Tomsheck’s deep understanding of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, combined with his ability to navigate the complex world of federal court, makes him the ideal choice for those seeking a reduced sentence.
• Proven Results: With years of experience defending clients in high-stakes federal cases, Tomsheck has consistently achieved favorable outcomes, including lighter sentences, successful appeals, and reduced charges.
• Client-Focused Defense: Tomsheck takes a personalized approach to every case, understanding that each client’s situation is unique. He works tirelessly to ensure that his clients receive the most favorable sentences possible, whether through departures, variances, or other legal strategies.

If you or a loved one is facing federal sentencing, contact Josh Tomsheck at the Law Firm of Hofland & Tomsheck today. With his experience and commitment to justice, you can trust that your case is in the best possible hands.