No. 07-388
In the Supreme Court of the United States
TALMUS R. TAYLOR, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES
PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 07-388
TALMUS R. TAYLOR, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES
Petitioner contends that, in reversing his outside- Guidelines sentence of probation for aiding and abetting in the preparation of false tax returns, the court of ap peals erroneously required the district court "to provide progressively more compelling justification under fac tors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) the farther the judge's sentence departs from the United States Sentencing Guidelines." Pet. 7. As petitioner notes (Pet. 6), this Court has granted certiorari in Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949 (argued Oct. 2, 2007), to determine whether the strength of a justification for a non-Guidelines sen tence must vary with the degree of the variance, and, in particular, whether extraordinary reasons are needed to justify a variance from the advisory range. Because the court of appeals applied the principle that "[t]he farther the judge's sentence departs from the guidelines sen tence . . . the more compelling the justification based on factors in section 3553(a) that the judge must offer in order to enable the court of appeals to assess the rea sonableness of the sentence imposed," Pet. App. 13a (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), the resolution of Gall is likely to affect the proper disposi tion of this petition.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that the peti tion for a writ of certiorari should be held pending this Court's decision in Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, and then disposed of as is appropriate in light of that decision.
PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
NOVEMBER 2007
