Two major developments have shaped the current state of white-collar sentencing at the federal level. The first is the advent over the last decade of high-profile, large-scale corporate fraud cases involving some of the country’s leading corporations, such as Enron, WorldCom, and ImClone. These cases involved massive losses of a scale never seen before and goaded the Federal Government into taking a hard, aggressive approach to prosecuting and punishing corporate and white-collar crime. Second, a series of landmark Supreme Court cases recast the function of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the nature of federal sentencing as a whole.1 Beginning with its 2005 Booker decision, which rendered the Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, the Supreme Court has progressively restored much of the sentencing discretion once possessed by district courts, most recently holding that courts may depart from the Guidelines even on the basis of policy disagreements. These events have, in turn, produced two different but related effects. On the one hand, given the sweeping scope of recent white-collar prosecutions, the stakes have never been higher for defendants in this category. Not only have average white-collar sentences steadily increased, but today 15-, 20-, and even 25-year sentences have become, if not commonplace, certainly not unprecedented. At the same time, new opportunities have arisen to challenge the rules and methods that until now mechanically produced such exceedingly long sentences. As a result of the Supreme Court’s new sentencing jurisprudence, many of the most basic issues central to white-collar sentencing—the definition and calculation of “loss,” the binding effect of the loss table, and the role of mitigating offense and offender factors—are again contestable for the first time in decades. We have gathered in this Issue of FSR an extraordinary collection of articles and other materials that shed light on the new realities and opportunities of white-collar sentencing. Our commentators have been not merely thoughtful observers of federal sentencing, but active participants in the sentencing process itself. Virtually all of our articles are coauthored by former federal prosecutors who have become defense attorneys or academics with vast knowledge of this field. All agree that the sentencing landscape for white-collar defendants has changed drastically, requiring prosecutors, defense attorneys, and courts to pursue new approaches to the determination of punishment.