Poe co-authored (along with frequent TL commenter Peter Goldberger) the Supreme Court amicus brief (pdf) for Families Against Mandatory Minimums ( FAMM)in the originally combined Claiborne and Victor Rita cases.

The brief addresses critical issues that arose after the Supreme Court decision in Booker (which made the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory) including this one, as yet unresolved: Does the sentencing court have to regard the guideline sentence as presumptively reasonable? Can it only deviate from the guidelines if it finds extraordinary reasons for doing so?

The answer should be, as the brief argues, that under 3553(a), the sentence imposed must be no harsher than is required to achieve the purposes of punishment. Where there is conflict between that principle and the guidelines, the guidelines should give way.

Since Booker, the Court must consider the 3553(a) factors, only the fourth of which is the guideline range in arriving at a sentence. The factors are:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed- (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; [C] to protect the public from furth