Congress has required federal courts to impose the least amount of imprisonment necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing as set forth in § 3553(a) of Title 18, United States Code. Those factors include (a) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (b) the kinds of sentences available; (c) the advisory guideline range; (d) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; (e) the need for restitution; and (f) the need for the sentence to reflect the following: the seriousness of the offense, promotion of respect for the law and just punishment for the offense, provision of adequate deterrence, protection of the public from future crimes and providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Your mitigation package is critical for the court to assess who you are as a person, not simply one moment in time. The attorneys at Carmichael Ellis & Brock, PLLC are experienced in compiling comprehensive mitigation packages base both on the flaws and irrationality of the guidelines as well as our clients individual characteristics. Contact us to for a free consultation to assess your case and potential mitigation.
Contactless video consultations available. Please note, if you are inquiring about an expungement, sealing, or pardon, please answer the questions on those pages to help us better assist you.
Descriptions and summaries about the attorneys’ prior cases and settlements found on this website are intended only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorneys and should not be understood as a guarantee or assurance of future success in any matter. The results portrayed were dependent on a variety of facts and circumstances unique to the particular matters described. Past results are not a guarantee of future results, and the outcome of your particular case or matter cannot be predicted using a lawyer’s or law firm’s past results. Every case is unique and different and should be evaluated on its own merits, without comparison to other cases that may have had different facts and circumstances.
