In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness."

This case involves the crime of lying to a federal grand jury, although the particular false statements are not germane to the legal issue the Supreme Court resolved.

Under either framework, Rita pointed to (1) the fact that he would be susceptible to retribution for being a government informant while in prison, (2) his military experience and distinguished service, and (3) his frail health, for a lower sentence.

The district judge ultimately disagreed that these factors warranted leniency under either framework, and sentenced Rita to 33 months in prison.

§ 3553(a), a district court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

The Commission wrote guidelines to carry out the statutory objectives, and it continues to do so, based on empirical evidence of over 10,000 sentences imposed in federal criminal cases.

Somewhat counterintuively, because the Sixth Amendment violation occurs when a judge imposes a sentence higher than she would otherwise be able to based on "jury-determined facts standing alone," there is no Sixth Amendmdent violation because a presumption of reasonableness does not require a judge to impose a sentence above whatever would be the Guidelines range based solely on the jury's findings.

This conclusion flows from the Sixth Amendment requirement that any fact legally necessary to support a sentence must be either admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.

The fact that judges are required to explain their decisions will help the Commission tweak the Guidelines to achieve further uniformity in the future.

These modifications will in turn give district courts less and less reason to depart from the Guidelines range, leading to greater sentencing uniformity.