PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 484.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 9, 2002
Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2002 - Disapproves Amendment number 4 of the "Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official Commentary," submitted by the United States Sentencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 2002, and provides that it shall not take effect to the extent it: (1) amends provisions setting forth the base offense level for unlawfully manufacturing, importing, exporting, or trafficking of drugs to provide that the base offense level shall not be more than level 30 if the defendant receives a mitigating role adjustment; and (2) instructs the court to apply the appropriate mitigating role adjustment to reduce the defendant's base offense level.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 484.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-769.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-769.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4689 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4689 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4689 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4689 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.