The federal sentencing guidelines are pro prosecution, especially in dishonesty/fraud cases. The $ amount of the caper can quickly drive up the guidelines to harsh draconian consequences, even for first time non violent offenders (often the scenario in these type of cases).

The Government almost always asks the Court to either sentence within the guidelines, or asks the Court for a downward variance. In the latter, it is usually a “better than nothing” recommendation, but nothing significant. For example, consider a guideline window of 41 -51 months.

Prior to sentencing, defense lawyer sends the judge a sentencing memo outlining all the mitigation regarding the wrongdoing and the defendant’s life. A good defense lawyer will make a good pitch in requesting a significant downward variance, but not insult the Court. So, let’s say the defense lawyer acknowledges that some prison time is warranted, but that 9-13 months is ample punishment.

The Government will counter, and either say “nonsense ... bottom of the guidelines (41 months) is righteous” or concede that some variance is warranted, but because of aggravating factors A, B, and C, “the United States recommends 33 months.”

Judges seldom impose more than requested by the prosecution.

Re Stone, Barr has directed his prosecutors to ask for a “substantial reduction” below the guidelines for all the same reasons that every criminal defense lawyer pitches in cases all around the country.

The Government’s revised sentencing memo in Stone’s case will be cited in every federal court going forward, and trial judges will delight in fucking with federal prosecutors trying to distinguish Stone from every other fraud/dishonesty case.