Collin County Criminal Attorney Blog

When a police officer arrests a person in Collin County, Texas for Driving While Intoxicated, the officer may seek a search warrant from a judge if the person refuses to provide a sample voluntarily. 
 
When the officer applies to the Judge for the search warrant authorizing him or her to draw a person's blood, the officer must prepare an affidavit of the facts that the officer believes will show that probable cause exists that evidence of a crime (Driving While Intoxicated) will be found in the body of the person under arrest.  That evidence usually takes the form of a quantity of alcohol in the blood of the person.  Because the act of securing a search warrant to take suspected evidence from a location in which the suspect has an expectation of privacy is a serious and solemn matter, the law imposes a requirement that the police officer seeking the warrant present a "sworn affidavit" to the judge in support of the search warrant.  Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 18.01(b) The requirement of preparing an affidavit and swearing to the truth of it's contents impress upon the officer the serious nature of the matter at hand.

The issue of whether section 18.01(b) requires a police officer to personally appear before the judge to swear out and oath, or whether the officer may simply swear to the truth of his or her affidavit over the phone, is an issue that has been debated by lawyers and judges quite a bit over the last few years.  Until recently, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has never weighed in to settle the question.  Finally, in January of 2013, the Court decided the case of Clay v. State of Texas. 

In Clay the Court succinctly ruled that section 18.01(b) does not necessarily require an officer to be in the personal presence of the judge from whom they seek the search warrant.  Swearing over the phone may be ok so long as "sufficient care is taken in the individual case to preserve the same or an equivalent solemnizing function to that which corporal presence accomplishes."

So, unless the legislature changes the requirement, it now appears that swearing over the phone will satisfy the Texas law regarding search warrants.

 

972 562 7549

rosenthalwadas.com

Who is Erdman, and why should you care?  Erdman is a case decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nearly two decades ago and has been the law of the land in Texas for that period of time. 

The Erdman case established that police officers who have arrested a Driving While Intoxicated suspect may not provide so called " extra statutory" information concerning the consequences of  refusal to submit to a breath test.  In plain terms,  The Erdman court explained that police are required by law to inform suspects about the legal consequences of refusal - nothing more and nothing less. 

The rationale behind the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision in Erdman is to ensure that people are not psychologically coerced to provide a breath sample where they would not have done so, but for the extra information.  The Court expressed it's opinion that if people are given extra information (which may or may not be reliable of accurate) beyond that which is required by law to be given, the extra information about the consequences of refusal may have the effect of psychologically coercing them to submit to the test.

Fast forward almost twenty years.  On November 21, 2012, the day before Thanksgiving, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upended the law of its own creation, a mere nineteen years after creating it.  The case is known as Fienen v. State of Texas.

In Fienen the Court let us know that it no longer finds the reasoning of Erdman "persuasive", and that the Court itself had "failed to properly analyze the issue."  I guess we will just have to take them at their word that they have now properly analyzed the legal question.  The Court then specifically overruled Erdman and its legal presumption that certain types of extra statutory consequences are per se coercive.  Instead, the Court left a system in place in which extra statutory consequences of refusal will be reviewed on a case by case basis, and the burden of proof will be on the state to show that the decision to submit to a breath test was not coercive.  The category of per se presumptions however, are gone.

As a lawyer, I find it somewhat comical/disheartening that the Court of Criminal Appeals would overrule a proposition of law of its own less than twenty years after creating it; and would do so in such self  critical terms.  This opinion does not exactly instill confidence in the stability of the law. That said, I do not believe the sky is falling.  This case merely strips away the per se presumptions as to certain categories of statement.   As a practitioner, bear in mind that  the law of coercion as a general matter still stands.  In the right case, an Erdman type Motion to Suppress should still be filed.   

 

 

        

When someone has been charged with a criminal offense, at some point the decision must be made to plead guilty or exercise one's right to a jury trial.  This statement is true in most criminal cases.  I say most,  because some criminal cases are dismissed by the prosecutor before trial or plea.

The decision to enter a guilty plea or insist on one's right to  a trial is a very important one for one's future.  There are a number of factors that go into the decision to accept a plea bargain offer or .  The decision is very case specific and can't be made until a lawyer thoroughly investigates the facts of the case, including speaking to the witnesses where possible, and fully understands the law applicable to the case.  Other important but somewhat intangible considerations involve the defense lawyer.  Does he or she practice in the county in which the charge is pending?  Does the lawyer know the practices of the particular court in which the case is pending?  Has the lawyer tried this type of case before and is he or she familiar with the sorts of punishments are common for thus type of offense.

It is not possible for your lawyer to advise you as to whether you should try the case or accept a plea bargain offer unless the attorney has the information I discussed above, as well as a realistic grasp of what sorts of outcomes are reasonably likely in the case pending against the client.  An inexperienced attorney is not going to know whether a particular plea bargain offer is "good" or "bad." 

When a person enters a plea bargain with the state, they waive their constitutional right to a jury trial.  A person waives the right to remain silent, the right to confront the witnesses against you, the right to present evidence on their own behalf, the right to appeal (with limited exceptions) and the right to require the state to prove every element of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, among other rights.

The above rights are important, and they are personal to the accused person.  They should not be waived lightly, if at all.   

rosenthalwadas.com

972 562 7549

A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit raised some eyebrows in Federal criminal law circles.  In the case of U.S. v. Rodriguez - Escareno, ___F.3d___, 2012 WL5200190 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012)  the Court vacated and remanded for resentencing,  on a plain error standard, where the District Court imposed a 16 level enhancement for defendant's previous conviction for a "drug trafficking offense."

Mr. Rodriguez - Escareno was indicted by a federal Grand Jury for the crime of  Illegal Reentry, and he plead guilty to the charge.  In the Federal system, when an indicted person pleads guilty, a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR)  is prepared.  One of the matters that the PSR addresses is the existence of prior convictions.  Mr. Rosdriguez - Escareno was previously convicted of a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The PSR determined that Rodriguez-Escareno's previous crime was a "drug trafficking offense," which permitted the application of a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i).  On the surface, it seems obvious that a drug conspiracy withing the meaning of the Federal criminal statute will be considered a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines; at least that is what everyone in Mr. Rodriguez - Escareno's case appeared to believe.

That section of the Guidelines permits a so called enhancement of 16 points to a present sentence if a person was previously  convicted of a "drug trafficking offense."  It appeared to the District Court that the previous conviction of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine was a drug trafficking offense ( and apparently it also appeared that way to defense counsel since no objection to the enhancement was made) and thus imposed the enhancement.

The Fifth Circuit held that the term conspiracy or conspiring, under the Federal statute criminalizing drug conspiracies, does not require an overt act.   Conversely, the meaning of the term conspiring included in the Guidelines section under which the defendant was sentenced does require an overt act.  Therefore, Mr. Rodriguez - Escareno's prior drug conspiracy conviction was not a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

24 hour jail release. Call 214 995 8513 for immediate assistance.

If your loved one has been arrested in Plano or Frisco, you may have been informed by the jail staff that you need a writ bond, sometimes called an attorney bond. I can assist you in obtaining immediate release for your friend or family member by filing a so called "writ bond" with the proper authorities.

When someone is arrested in Plano or Frisco, they are typically taken to the city jail before they are eventually transferred to the County detention center in McKinney. The arrested person will not be released until they can post a bond. There is often a considerable delay between the time a person is arrested and the time a bond is set.

The filing of a writ bond by an attorney has the effect of setting a bond immediately, without the necessity of waiting for a magistrate to set the bond.

Call 214 995 8513, twenty four hours a day for assistance.

Derk Wadas

972 369 0577

What is a Texas Board Certified Criminal Lawyer?

A lawyer who is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization has demonstrated special competence and experience in Texas criminal law.

To become Board Certified in Criminal Law a Texas attorney must have experience trying serious criminal matters and must demonstrate knowledge of state and federal criminal law and procedure.

In addition, among other requirements to be considered for Board Certification in criminal law, the attorney must pass a written examination and be evaluated by other attorneys and judges.

I am Board Certified in Criminal Law and am one of approximately only twenty Collin County Criminal defense attorneys who are Board Certified.

Derk Wadas

972 369 0577

What is the Pre Trial Diverson Program in Collin County?  How do I get into the program?  Why should I enter the program if I am accepted? 

The Pre Trial Diversion program in Collin County was created by the Collin County District Attorney's Office to balance the community's interest in punishing crimes with its interest in correcting the criminal behaviors of youthful or first time offenders in a way that allows them to move forward with their lives with a clean slate, so to speak.

Essentially, the Pre Trial Diversion program is an agreement between a person accused of a crime and the Collin County District Attorney's Office, where a person agrees to a period of supervision by the Collin County Community Supervision Department and further agrees to a number of conditions during that supervision period.  The conditions of supervision depend upon the type of crime involved but frequently involves:
-community service
-resitution
-classes or programs
an agreement to engage in no further criminal activity

In exchange for a person's agreement to participate in the program, the Collin County District Attorney's Office will agree to file a Motion to Dismiss the case against the person at the end of the Diversion period. 

As an attorney who represents people in court in Collin County every single day, I cannot say enough positive things about the program.  Essentially, the Diversion programs allows people with no record, who have committed some offense, to eventually have their case dismissed entirely.  A person who successfully completes the Collin County Pre Trial Diversion program will have their case dismissed.  This means that the successful Diversion candidate will never have to admit guilt in a court of law to a crime.  No factual finding that the person has committed a crime will be made and the case will be dismissed.

Most importantly, when the person has their case dismissed, they become expunction eligible.  An expunction Order allows the accused person to lawfully deny the existence of the case!.  To learn more about expunctions and how the ways that a person may become expunction eligible in Texas, please click here.

The jury trial is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It is the forum where my client's future is often on the line. Jury trials are the method by which people accused of crimes can have their day in court and put the state to its proof. Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a jury trial where the state will be required to prove every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

An important aspect of representing people in court against a criminal charge is the decision to enter a plea of guilty or to exercise one's right to a jury trial. That decision is unique to each case and depends on many factors.

Recently, my client and I decided to try her Driving While Intoxicated case in Collin County. Because the client's blood was drawn unlawfully it was excluded from evidence. As the trial unfolded the evidence simply did not persuade the jury and the client was found not guilty. The jurors did the right thing, consistent with their oath to follow the law, and the client was pleased with the outcome.

Derk Wadas

24 hour jail release phone number 214 995 8513

Recently, there was a short lived policy that prohibited attorneys from filing writ bonds for clients in Collin county who were arrested for DWI, 2nd offense or a DWI with a breath test result of .15 or higher. 

  Essentially, the filing of a writ bond allows a person who has been arrested on a misdemeanor charge in Collin county to be released from bail prior to seeing a magistrate.  Without the filing of a writ bond by an attorney, an arrested person will have to wait to see a magistrate and have bond set before they are eligible for release. 

The recent policy blocked attorneys from filing writs (or attorney bonds) on the following DWI arrests:

• DWI 1st offense with a BAC higher than .15; and
• DWI 2nd;

The policy has been modified to allow attorneys to file writ bonds for their clients on the above type of cases.  However, the new policy now requires people arrested for DWI 2nd offense or DWI with a .15 or higher  to have an Ignition Interlock device installed on any car that they own or operate as a condition of bond. 

972 369 0577

Derk Wadas

The  Federal Drug Conspiracy laws establish a so called "mandatory minimum" of a certain number of years in prison upon conviction and sentencing. depending upon the amount of drugs involved.  For example, 5-40 years in prison with a minimum of five or 10 years to Life in prison   Essentially, it means that if one is convicted of a dug conspiracy, one is required to serve the mandatory minimum without regard to applicable sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Is the mandatory minimum really "mandatory."  For many, the answer is clearly, no.  There are several mechanisms built into the law that allow people to avoid, in some cases, the mandatory minimum requirements.

The first is the Safety Valve which I have written about in greater detail here.

The other methods by which one may avoid the mandatory minimum are Substantial Assistance resulting in either a 5K1 or Rule 35 Motion, or what is referred to as a downward departure or non Guidelines sentence.

Substantial Assistance

Substantial Assistance refers to assistance provided by an accused person to the government in the apprehension or successful prosecution of a co defendant, co conspirator or other person.  Typically the assistance involves the person speaking or "debriefing" with the Government agents and providing information.  The person is often expected to testify against others or at least be willing to testify.

If the person provides assistance that the Government, in its discretion, deems "substantial", the Government will inform the Court by filing either a 5k1 Motion or a Rule 35 Motion.  A 5K1 motion is so named because section 5K1 of the Sentencing Guidelines authorizes the Government to file a Motion informing the Court that a person has provided substantial assistance.  More importantly, it authorizes the Court to disregard the applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence and give a person a sentence that the court deems appropriate without regard to the mandatory minimum.

The difference between a 5K1 motion and a Rule 35 Motion is that a Rule 35 Motion is filed after sentencing and a 5k1 Motion is filed before sentencing.  Either a 5k1 or a Rule 35 Motion allows the court to disregard the statutory minimum.  This is a downward departure.

Downward Departure

  A downward departure is a term used to describe a situation where the court will impose a sentence below the applicable guideline range sentence.  A downward departure does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a 5k1 or Rule 35 Motion.  The court may sentence a person below the statutory minimum if the court decides to depart downward from the guidelines for another reason or reasons.
   

972 369 0577

Derk Wadas


People charged with a criminal offense in Collin County Texas are naturally concerned with the amount of time it will take to resolve the matter, so they may address the matter at hand and move on with their life.   I am often asked questions about what to expect, generally, in terms of time, court appearances, etc.   I am going to break this up into two sections:  after arrest and before the first court date.  Part two will address the process after the case is filed or indicted.

BETWEEN THE TIME OF  ARREST AND FIRST COURT DATE

Most people have a general understanding of the court process after a formal charge has been filed.  That is to say, most of us understand that when one is formally accused of a crime by the government, one has the right to a jury trial, to require the government to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, to present witnesses one's own behalf and that the accused has the right to confront and cross examine witnesses against them that are presented by the government.

What about that period of time between the moment when the police place someone under arrest and the moment the arrested person is actually in court to defend the charge against them?   For many people, that aspect of the process is murky or confusing or both.  Here is a brief summary of that process that I hope answers some of the questions you might have.

When the police arrest someone, they have to bring the accused before a magistrate within forty eight hours.  The magistrate makes a preliminary determination as to whether the police had probable cause to arrest someone.  If he or she finds that the arrest was unlawful, the arrested person is discharged.  If the magistrate finds that the arrest was lawful and supported by probable cause, the magistrate will inform the arrested person of several important issues.  The issues that will be discussed by the magistrate include the accusation made against them, their right to remain silent, and their right to an attorney among other things.  At this point the magistrate also sets a bond.  If the person is unable to bond out by posting a cash or surety bond, they will be transported to the Collin county jail in McKinney. 

 

When a person is held and unable to make bond, they may try to raise bond, seek a bond reduction in the appropriate court, or if the case is not formally filed or indicted within certain time frames, they may be eligible for a reduced or personal bond.   In a felony case, if the arrested person is unable to make bond for ninety days and the state is not ready for trial, i.e. the arrested person has not been indicted by the Grand Jury, the arrested person is generally entitled to a reduced or personal bond.  Similarly, in a misdemeanor case the state must be ready within fifteen day for a Class B misdemeanor and thirty days for a Class A misdemeanor or the arrested person will generally be entitled to a reduced or personal bond. 

 As you are probably aware, the arrest and arraignment is not the end of the process, in fact it is really just the beginning.  Following arrest, the investigating police agency will usually file a case with the District Attorney's Office.  If it is a misdemeanor case the District Attorney's office will prosecute by filing a document known as an "Information."  An Information is the formal charging document in a misdemeanor case.  Misdemeanor cases may be filed by the District Attorney after the case is reviewed by attorneys assigned to the  Intake division.  There is no requirement for a Grand Jury indictment in a misdemeanor case, rather they may simply be filed.  Misdemeanor cases of a grade Class B or higher are filed in the County Court at Law Clerk's office and assigned randomly to one of the six County Courts at Law that we have in Collin County. 

 

In a felony case, the process by which a person is formally charged is more complicated.  When the police file a felony case with the District Attorney's Office, the case is sent to its Grand Jury division.  The Grand Jury Division has several options at this point.  They may present the case as filed to a Grand Jury with the goal of seeking an indictment, the may decide not to prosecute the case, they may request additional investigation from the filing police agency, or in some unusual instances, may decide that the case should be filed as a misdemeanor.

 

If the District Attorney's Office decides to seek a felony indictment, the case is presented to the Grand Jury.  A Grand Jury is composed of not more than twelve citizens summoned serve as grand jurors to consider whether an indictable offense has occurred in the cases presented to them.  The grand jury proceeding is secret.  It may come as a surprise to you to learn that the arrested person whose case is being considered by the Grand Jury has no right to be present when the evidence is being presented; nor does an attorney representing an arrested person.  Only the grand jurors themselves, the attorney for the State, the bailiffs and stenographers may be present.  Generally, the arrested person may submit written material for the Grand Jury to consider.

 

When the Grand Jury has considered the case, a vote is taken and if at least nine members of the Grand Jury concur with the bill presented by the attorney for the State the Grand Jury has found a "true bill" and an Indictment will issue.  An indictment is the written statement of a grand jury accusing a person of a crime.  If an indictment issues the case will be filed in the District Clerk's office, assigned to one of the District Courts and a criminal prosecution will commence.  On the other hand, if less than nine of the grand jurors concur in the bill, the grand jury has issued what is referred to as a "no bill", and no indictment will issue.

 

Derk Wadas 

972 369 0577

The consequences for an Assault - Family Violence accusation are different in a number of ways from other misdemeanors. 

First, as soon as a person is arrested upon an allegation of Assault Family Violence and brought before a magistrate, the magistrate often issues an order known as an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) that regulates the conduct of the accused person.  The EPO frequently forbids the accused person from returning home, or coming within a certain distance of within schools, homes, and places of employment. 

  An Assault Family violence conviction may prohibit the convicted person from ever again possessing a firearm under Federal law.  Unlike most other misdemeanor offenses,  an Assault-Family violence offense- even if you receive Deferred Adjudication- can never be Non Disclosed (sealed).  This means that if you are convicted or placed on deferred for an Assault- Family violence offense you will have a permanent record of the fact of your arrest for that offense.

If you are not a U.S. Citizen and you are accused of an Assault- Family violence, you may have immigration consequences and should consult an Immigration lawyer.  Finally, a second or subsequent conviction for Assault - Family violence may subject you to a Felony level char

972 369 0577

rosenthalwadas.com

Many of the questions I am asked concern submitting to or refusing a breath or blood test in a Driving While Intoxicated case.

Generally, the law provides a DWI suspect the right to refuse, subject to several exceptions.  First, the law now authorizes the police to require the taking of a blood sample from a DWI suspect without a search warrant  in several situations.  1.  DWI- with child, 2., DWI where an accident has occurred and it results in an injury to a person other than the operator that requires them to go to the hospital. 3.  When the officer believes that the operator has committed a felony DWI, that is to say, he or she has at least two previous DWI convictions.

In addition to the above, the police may always seek a search warrant to require a blood sample whenever they have arrested a person for DWI, and believe they have probable cause that evidence of intoxication will be found in the person's blood.  This is true regardless of whether any of the above factors are present.

If the police obtain a search warrant for my blood and the results indicate an alcohol concentration over the legal limit, am I automatically guilty?

No.  A lawyer should carefully review the police officer's affidavit in support of the search warrant application, to review whether the affidavit establishes probable cause to show that evidence of intoxication will be found in a person's blood at the time of the application for the search warrant. 

There are numerous avenues to explore on this topic, and I will focus on just one right now- a recurring issue.  A lawyer should review the search warrant to make sure that the facts establish that the evidence of intoxication will be found at a particular time.  For example.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently addressed the issue of the sufficiency of an affidavit in support of a search warrant for blood in the case of Crider v. State,  (November 17, 2011).

In Crider, the police officer's affidavit indicated that "[o]n or about 06-06-08" the officer observed the defendant commit the offense of DWI.  The magistrate signed the warrant on June 7, 2008 and it was executed soon thereafter.  The Court of Criminal Appeals held that in light of the potential 25 hour window between the time the crime could have occurred, and the time the warrant was executed, the information was stale and therefore the affidavit did not establish probable cause that the "evidence of intoxication would be found in appellant's blood at the time the search warrant was issued." 

 In Crider the officer did in fact state the day, month and year, but was imprecise about the time of day- leaving an objective reader of the affidavit a potential twenty five hour window of time in which the evidence of intoxication may be found.  A gap too large for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The issue of the specificity of the time in the search warrant affidavit is one issue among many that should be reviewed in a DWI case with a blood search warrant.

  

  

One of the questions I am often asked is "am I entitled to a bond on a probation revocation?"  The answer to that questions depends upon the type of probation.  In a deferred adjudication situation, one is entitled to a bond.  On ordinary communtiy supervision probation, one is not entitled to a bond setting, though in practice bonds are sometimes set. 

There are essentially two different types of probation, often called community supervision.

The first type is known as deferred adjudication.  In a deferred adjudication situation, a person is placed on community supervision with no finding, or "adjudication" of guilt.  If a person successfully completes deferred adjudication, the case is dismissed and the person avoids a conviction.  If the person is accused of violating one or more conditions of deferred adjudication community supervsion, the person's supervison officer may file what is known as a Petition to Adjudicate.  When a Petition to Adjudicate is filed, a warrant for the person's arrest is issued.  In Collin County, judges will sometimes set a bond amount when the warrant issues on a Petition to Adjudicate.

However, sometimes courts will issue a no bond warrant.  If a person is on deferred adjudication and a warrant for their arrest has issued because of the filing of a Petition to Adjudicate, the person is entitled by law to the setting of a bond.  If the Court issues a no bond warrant, an attorney may simply file paperwork asking that a resonable bond be set.

The other type of community supervision is what I refer to as ordinary or straight probation. Conceptually,  it differs from deferred adjudication in that if one is placed on straight probation, one has been convicted of the offense.  If a person is accused of violating the terms of straight probation, a document known as a Motion to Revoke may be filed and a warrant will issue.

A person is not entitled to the setting of a bond if one is arrested on a warrant that was issued due to the filing of a Motion to Revoke.  In practice, however, depending upon many factors, sometimes a judge in Collin County will set a bond upon the filing of the proper paperwork requesting that a bond be set.

In practical terms, if a person is arrested on a Motion to Revoke, it is important to move quickly to seek a bond setting so that the person may secure release from the county jail.  Otherwise, the person will be in the Collin county jail until the Motion to Revoke is resolved. 

Sentencing in federal criminal case is largely a product of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.  For those that may not know, the Guidelines were established by Congress in the 1980s in an effort to bring uniformity and consistency to federal criminal cases.  The Guidelines established, among other things,  mandatory minimum sentences for many drug conspiracy cases.

In 1994, Congress passed the "Safety Valve" statute, 18 U.S.C section 3553(f).  The safety valve provision of Title 18 authorizes Courts to impose sentences below the statutory minimum if the defendant meets certain requirements in cases under section 21 USC 841, 844, 846, 960 or 963.

---

If I were to summarize that section in ordinary terms, in order to qualify for the safety valve the following must be true: 

1 no one was injured

2 the defendant has little or no criminal history

3 the defendant did not use a gun, violence or threats

4  the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of the criminal conspiracy

5 the defendant submits to a debrief and is fully honest during the debrief, or is at least willing to honestly debrief should the government decline.

If the defendant meets the requirments, the U.S. Sentencing Guideline section 5C1.2 authorizes the court to sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum.  Understanding an utilizing the safety valve properly is one method of using the Guidelines to your advantage. 

It is important to remember that since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Booker decision, the Guidelines are not mandatory, but advisory.  Nevertheless, the Guidelines are the starting point in Federal sentencing, and departures from the Guidelines must be "reasonable."  In fact, most sentences imposed by Federal Judges are still Guidelines type sentences. For this reason, it is very important for any Federal Criminal defense attorney to fully understand both the application fo the Guidelines and how to effectively present arguments for reasonable non guidelines sentences.