Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01262/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01262-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Curtis Weaver
Appellant

Document Text:

,, F 1 LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUN 2 ° 1991 

&.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-1262 

) (D.C. No. 90-CR-45-4) 

CURTIS WEAVER, ) (D. Colorado) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Curtis Weaver appeals the sentence imposed upon him 

after his guilty plea to a charge of possession with intent to 

distribute marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 841(a)(l) and 18 

U.S.C. S 2. The district court properly calculated the sentencing 

range applicable to his crime and sentenced him to the minimum 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1262 Document: 010110128205 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 1 
amount of incarceration under the range, twenty-seven months. 

Defendant's only argument on appeal is that reversal for 

resentencing is necessary because the district court acted under 

an erroneous belief that it did not have discretion to depart 

downward from the sentencing range. 

Defendant's argument is based on statements made by the 

district court during defendant's sentencing hearing. During that 

hearing, defense counsel pointed out that defendant suffered from 

a significant learning disability and came from an unstable childhood home. Counsel further highlighted defendant's rehabilitation 

efforts since his arrest, including substantial improvements in 

his family life and eight months of sobriety following years of 

alcoholism. Counsel concluded by asking the court to explain to 

defendant that despite these factors, probation simply was not a 

sentencing option under the guidelines. See III R. 13-14. In 

response the court stated: 

Well, I think [defense counsel] is correct that the 

hands of judges have been tied in exceptional cases by 

the sentencing guidelines, which, while the offense is 

very serious, and the crime is very serious, the attitude that you have shown and the ability to build on 

a--to build a very bright future on a rather shaking 

passion [sic] that you have been demonstrating through 

sheer effort and discipline, with the help of apparently 

a wonderful wife, was one that would have, had the law 

been as it was just a few years ago, made this a case 

where I could consider probation, but I can't consider 

that. The Congress won't let me do that. I don't like 

that, and, in fact, I held it was unconstitutional but 

the Supreme Court of the United States didn't agree with 

me. So all I can do is impose a sentence that's 

required in this case. 

III R. 15. 

It is the law of this circuit that a discretionary refusal of 

the district court to depart downward below the sentencing 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1262 Document: 010110128205 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 2 
guidelines is not appealable or reviewable. See, ~, United 

States v. Adams, 914 F.2d 1404, 1409 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

111 s. Ct. 588 (1990). But we will remand if we believe the 

district court has misapprehended its power to depart, see United 

States v. Maldonado-Campos, 920 F.2d 714, 718 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Also, if we are in doubt as to whether the court understood its 

authority to depart downward, we will remand to the district court 

for clarification. See United States v. Lowden, 900 F.2d 213, 

217-18 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 206 (1990). 

A district court undoubtedly may depart downward if it finds 

certain extraordinary circumstances are present. See,~, 

United States v. Pena, 930 F.2d 1486, 1496 (10th Cir. 1991) 

(upholding district court's decision to depart downward based on 

defendant's "long employment history, the abberational nature of 

her conduct, and the fact that two infants would be deprived of 

support if she were incarcerated"); United States v. Sklar, 920 

F.2d 107, 116 (1st Cir. 1990) (downward departure might be warranted by defendant's rehabilitation between arrest and sentencing 

if so extraordinary as to not have been taken into account by 

guidelines); United States v. Deigert, 916 F.2d 916, 918-19 (4th 

Cir. 1990) (defendant's tragic personal background and family history would support downward departure if circumstances were 

extraordinary). Our review of the record, however, convinces us 

that the instant district court understood that it possessed such 

power. 

Taken in context, the court's statement that its hands were 

tied by the guidelines does not suggest a misundertanding of its 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1262 Document: 010110128205 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 3 
, departure powers. The court was simply responding to trial 

counsel's request that it inform defendant that probation was not 

a sentencing alternative in the instant case. Any doubts about 

this are resolved by the following question the court asked 

defendant before accepting his guilty plea: "Do you understand 

that after it's been determined what guideliens [sic] apply to a 

case, the judge has the authority, in some circumstances, to 

impose a sentence that's more severe or less severe than the 

sentence called for by the guidelines?" II R. 15. 

Accordingly, defendant's sentence is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1262 Document: 010110128205 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 4