U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 15— CONFERENCES AND COUNCILS OF JUDGES

28 U.S.C. § 334

Institutes and joint councils on sentencing

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In the interest of uniformity in sentencing procedures, there is hereby authorized to be established under the auspices of the Judicial Conference of the United States, institutes and joint councils on sentencing. The Attorney General and/or the chief judge of each circuit may at any time request, through the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Judicial Conference to convene such institutes and joint councils for the purpose of studying, discussing, and formulating the objectives, policies, standards, and criteria for sentencing those convicted of crimes and offenses in the courts of the United States. The agenda of the institutes and joint councils may include but shall not be limited to: (1) The development of standards for the content and utilization of presentence reports; (2) the establishment of factors to be used in selecting cases for special study and observation in prescribed diagnostic clinics; (3) the determination of the importance of psychiatric, emotional, sociological and physiological factors involved in crime and their bearing upon sentences; (4) the discussion of special sentencing problems in unusual cases such as treason, violation of public trust, subversion, or involving abnormal sex behavior, addiction to drugs or alcohol, and mental or physical handicaps; (5) the formulation of sentencing principles and criteria which will assist in promoting the equitable administration of the criminal laws of the United States.(b) After the Judicial Conference has approved the time, place, participants, agenda, and other arrangements for such institutes and joint councils, the chief judge of each circuit is authorized to invite the attendance of district judges under conditions which he thinks proper and which will not unduly delay the work of the courts.(c) The Attorney General is authorized to select and direct the attendance at such institutes and meetings of United States attorneys and other officials of the Department of Justice and may invite the participation of other interested Federal officers. He may also invite specialists in sentencing methods, criminologists, psychiatrists, penologists, and others to participate in the proceedings.(d) The expenses of attendance of judges shall be paid from applicable appropriations for the judiciary of the United States. The expenses connected with the preparation of the plans and agenda for the conference and for the travel and other expenses incident to the attendance of officials and other participants invited by the Attorney General shall be paid from applicable appropriations of the Department of Justice.(Added Pub. L. 85–752, § 1, Aug. 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 845.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSentencing Procedures

Pub. L. 85–752, § 7, Aug. 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 847, provided that: “This Act [enacting this section, sections 4208 and 4209 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and provisions set out as a note under section 4208 of Title 18] does not apply to any offense for which there is provided a mandatory penalty.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1961–2019 · leading case: Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). · cites it 2× “In 1958, Congress authorized the creation of judicial sentencing institutes and joint councils, see 28 U. S. C. § 334 , to formulate standards and criteria for sentencing.”
Corey v. United States, 375 U.S. 169 (1963). · cites it 2× “See 28 U. S. C. § 334 (providing for judicial sentencing institutes to be held in the various circuits); 18 U.”
Jose Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Al Kanahele, Warden, Metro. Corr. Ctr., San Diego, California, United States of Am. v. Raul Chavez-Sanchez, 857 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). “28 U.S.C. § 334 (1982) (authorizing institutes and joint councils under the Judicial Conference to study and formulate standards and objectives for sentencing).”
Jesus Rivera v. United States, 318 F.2d 606 (9th Cir. 1963). “See Note to 28 U.S.C.A. § 334 . A violation of 21 U.S.”
United States v. Alves, 688 F. Supp. 70 (D. Mass. 1988). “§§ 991-98 ) (hereinafter the “SRA”), was the culmination of years of legislative efforts to reform the federal criminal sentencing system.”
United States v. Mendez, 691 F. Supp. 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “In 1958, Congress authorized advisory judicial sentencing institutes to promote “uniformity in sentencing procedures,” 28 U.S.C. § 334 (a), and to reduce “widespread disparities in the sentences imposed by Federal courts.”
Brandt v. Trivest II, Inc. (In Re Plassein Int'l Corp.), 352 B.R. 36 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006). “JURISDICTION The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 334 (b) and 157(b)(1). III.DISCUSSION A.”
William R. Leach v. United States, 334 F.2d 945 (D.C. Cir. 1964). “845 ) were: 28 U.S.C. § 334 , which provided for institutes and joint councils on sentencing to consider among other items “(1) The development of standards for the content and utilization of presentence reports; (2) the establishment of factors to be used in selecting cases for…”
William H. Leach v. United States, 320 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1963). “” See also 28 U.S.C. § 334 . . The chart shows the number of pre-sentence examinations made for the District Court since 1958 by the Legal Psychiatric Services as follows: In 1958 — IT, in 1959 — 32, in 1960 — 51, in 1961 — 13, and in 1962 — 3.”
United States v. Silvernail, 1 M.J. 945 (1976). “, 28 U.S.C. § 334 , which, “In the interest of uniformity in sentencing procedures, authorized the establishment of institutes and joint councils on sentencing” & ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences, approved…”
William Herbert Jones v. United States, 419 F.2d 593 (8th Cir. 1969). “The difficulty, however, arises from the fact that § 4208 (along with § 4209, relating to young adult offenders, and 28 U.S.C. § 334 , relating to institutes and joint councils on sentencing) had its birth with the Act of August 25, 1958.”
United States v. Myers, 687 F. Supp. 1403 (N.D. Cal. 1988). “Instead, Congress found that the concepts of indeterminate sentencing and parole release were based on an outdated and inappropriate rehabilitation model.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.