Taking the average of the daily carrying-cost range for Ohio and Pennsylvania, multiplying it by the average time saved under each scenario and the number of loans in foreclosure in each state brings us to an estimated annual savings for each state, had a foreclosure fast-track been in place at the end of 2012.
Even if it were feasible for creditors to fund adequate staffing in the proper local government offices, it would not be a substitute for an act of the legislature creating a usable foreclosure fast-track for vacant foreclosures.
The circuit split on the issue evened up when the Sixth Circuit joined the First and Third Circuits in holding that sentencing courts have discretion to consider the disparity in sentencing between similarly situated defendants due to the existence or non-existence of fast-track programs.
The fundamental distinction in the pro-discretionary view adopted by the First, Third, and Sixth Circuits and the anti-discretionary view advocated by the Fifth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits is whether the disparity resulting from selective deployment of fast-track programs is unwarranted.
Similar to how Congress directed the Commission to promulgate fast-track Guidelines in the PROTECT Act, section 994(h) of the SRA instructed the Commission to establish guidelines specifically for career-offenders defendants with multiple prior felony convictions.
(130) Unlike the courts that decided the fast-track issue, the circuits had harmonized in authorizing district courts to sentence in disagreement with the Guidelines for career-offenders.
Recent judicial and administrative developments have furthered the fast-track debate.
Circuit Split Favors Discretion to Vary Based on Fast-Track Disparity
Reyes-Hernandez, the circuit split on the fast-track issue tipped in favor of the pro-discretion side.
(140) Given the parallels between Corner and the fast-track issue, the court believed Corner largely "eviscerate[d] the government's position" that district courts are bound by Guidelines directed from Congress.
The government also argued in Reyes-Hernandez that granting judges in non-fast-track districts the ability to consider fast-track disparity in sentencing downward infringes on the principle of separation of powers.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit added to the circuit split by authorizing judicial sentencing discretion in light of the disparity produced from fast-track programs.