Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02269/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sheila Gentile
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1893

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

 * 

v. * 

 * 

Anthony Gentile, *

 * 

Defendant - Appellee. * 

 * 

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 06-2269 District Court for the

___________ Eastern District of Missouri.

United States of America, * 

 *

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

 * 

v. * 

 * 

Sheila Gentile, *

 * 

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2006

 Filed: January 17, 2007

 ____________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

 ____________

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
-2-

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Anthony and Sheila Gentile, who are brother and sister, both pled guilty to

conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine knowing that it would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine. The district court varied from the calculated advisory guideline

range of 100 to 125 months to sentence Anthony Gentile to 48 months. After

calculating a guideline range of 37 to 46 months for Sheila Gentile, the district court

sentenced her to one day of time served and probation. The government appeals both

sentences as unreasonable. We reverse.

In February 2003 members of the Saint Louis Methamphetamine Precursor

Diversion Task Force (task force) observed Sheila Gentile purchasing

pseudoephedrine based products at local pharmacies. When questioned by members

of the task force, Ms. Gentile stated that she had intended to deliver the

pseudoephedrine to her brother Anthony, an allegation he later denied. Ms. Gentile

was again observed gathering pseudoephedrine pills in June 2004, and she stated that

she intended to sell them on E-Bay. In October 2004 she was found with more

pseudoephedrine pills and drug paraphernalia after a routine traffic stop.

In June 2003 the task force also observed Anthony Gentile making multiple

purchases of cold medicine. During a stop of his vehicle, the police observed a

number of pill packs in plain view as well as drug paraphernalia. Crime lab tests

revealed that the pills contained 83.52 grams of pseudoephedrine. Mr. Gentile stated

in a subsequent interview that he intended to exchange the pills for money and for

methamphetamine for his personal use. He denied ever manufacturing or distributing

methamphetamine.

Sheila and Anthony Gentile were each indicted on one count of conspiracy to

possess pseudoephedrine knowing that it would be used to manufacture a controlled

substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Mr. Gentile was indicted on an additional

count of criminal possession of pseudoephedrine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2),

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
-3-

and Ms. Gentile was indicted on three additional possession counts. Both pled guilty

to the conspiracy charges in early December 2005. 

In Mr. Gentile's case, the parties agreed that he was responsible for between 70

and 100 grams of pseudoephedrine, anticipating a base offense level of 30, a two level

reduction for minor role, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), and a three level reduction for

acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1(a), (b). Without taking his criminal

history into account, his advisory guideline range would have been 57 to 71 months,

but he had multiple prior convictions, including five drug or alcohol related offenses,

felony burglary, and felony endangering the welfare of a child. Mr. Gentile also

committed the instant offense while on probation for a prior conviction. The district

court assessed his criminal history category at V, resulting in a guideline range of 100

to 125 months. 

The district court then varied downward to sentence Mr. Gentile to 48 months.

In doing so the court explained that although he had a "serious criminal history," the

court considered it to be a history of "relatively petty crimes" and Mr. Gentile to be

primarily a drug addict, not the kind of "hardened life-long drug dealers" who might

also be sentenced for the same offense under the same guideline. The court

questioned the Sentencing Commission policy on pseudoephedrine, which uses a

sentencing formula based on the presumed amount of methamphetamine that could

be produced from the amount of pseudoephedrine possessed. According to the district

court, the relationship between precursor quantities and methamphetamine quantities

"is not as simple a correlation as the Sentencing Commission perhaps believed at the

time they set the guidelines."

In Ms. Gentile's plea agreement, the parties agreed that she was responsible for

more than 40 but less than 70 grams of pseudoephedrine, resulting in a base offense

level of 28 under the advisory guidelines. They also agreed to a three level reduction

for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b), and a two level

reduction for minor role, see id. § 3B1.2(b). With the government's approval, the

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
1

Although the sentencing guidelines do not specifically provide for safety valve

treatment for pseudoephedrine offenses sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11, see U.S.

v. Saffo, 227 F.3d 1260, 1273 (10th Cir. 2000), the parties agreed that a reduction

could nevertheless be appropriate under § 5K2.0.

2

Although the district court referred at sentencing to § 5K1.6, it appears that the

court intended the departure to fall under § 5H1.6. 

-4-

district court also granted her a two level "safety valve" reduction.1

 Ms. Gentile had

no criminal history points, placing her advisory guideline range at 37 to 46 months.

Ms. Gentile moved for a downward variance or departure on the basis of her

family circumstances and need to "stay home so that she can take care of her child."

In support of this motion she stated that she is the full time caretaker of her two year

old son, whose father is unavailable. She resides with her mother and stepfather, who

both work full time and suffer from a variety of medical complications. She also cares

for her brother Anthony's 14 year old son who lives in the same house and has

behavioral problems. The district court concluded that Ms. Gentile had established

extraordinary family ties and responsibilities warranting a departure under U.S.S.G.

§ 5H1.6.2

 The court sentenced her to one day of incarceration and three years of

supervised release, stating that the sentence was a reasonable one under the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors.

The government appeals both sentences, challenging the appropriateness of the

district court's § 5H1.6 departure in Sheila Gentile's case and arguing that both

sentences were unreasonable. We review a district court's interpretation of the

advisory sentencing guidelines de novo and its decision to depart from the guidelines

for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir.

2005). We review a final sentence for reasonableness, which is "akin to our

traditional review for abuse of discretion." United States v. Goody, 442 F.3d 1132,

1134 (8th Cir. 2006). "A sentencing court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider

a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight

to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
-5-

commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Long

Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d

997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)).

The government challenges the reasonableness of Mr. Gentile's 48 month

sentence, a significant downward variance from his advisory range of 100 to 125

months. The government argues that the district court improperly relied on its own

disagreement with the sentencing guidelines for pseudoephedrine and that it failed to

give adequate weight to his criminal history, to his likelihood to reoffend, and to the

policy against unwarranted sentencing disparities. Because there is no dispute about

Mr. Gentile's guideline range, we review his sentence for reasonableness in light of

the § 3553(a) factors. See Goody, 442 F.3d at 1134. 

Although the sentencing guidelines are advisory and district courts are free to

fashion sentences that fall outside the guideline range where individual circumstances

warrant, disagreement with a policy enunciated by the Sentencing Commission is not

a proper factor upon which to base a variance. See United States v. Blackford, 469

F.3d 1218, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, the sentencing court offered a general critique

of the policy judgment underlying the pseudoephedrine quantity tables rather than

pointing to specific circumstances that might make the tables unreasonable for Mr.

Gentile's case. Instead, the district court substituted its own policy views for those of

Congress and the Sentencing Commission, an independent agency within the judicial

branch created by Congress to develop sentencing policy and promulgate guidelines.

See United States v. Pho, 433 F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2006) ("[I]n the absence of

constitutional infirmity, federal courts are bound by Congress's policy judgments,

including judgments concerning the appropriate penalties for federal crimes.); see also

Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). To the extent that it relied on its

general disagreement with the guidelines, the district court abused its discretion.

The remaining factors on which the district court relied do not provide

sufficient justification for the extent of the variance. The court emphasized that

Anthony Gentile was neither a distributor nor manufacturer of methamphetamine and

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
-6-

only committed his offense to feed his addiction. The fact that he did not commit

other separate offenses does not provide grounds for a departure of such magnitude.

See United States v. Grinbergs, 470 F.3d 758, 761 (8th Cir. 2006). His advisory

guideline range was based on the offense for which he was convicted, not others. Had

his offense involved the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, his offense level

would have been increased accordingly. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11(c). The fact that he

committed the offense in order to feed his addiction does not distinguish him from

many other offenders. See United States v. Lee, 454 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2006)

("Drug addiction or abuse is not a proper reason to impose a downward variance,

absent exceptional circumstances."). The district court's observation that the

guidelines led to an overstatement of his criminal history also fails to justify the extent

of this variance. Even if he had been assigned no criminal history points, his advisory

guideline range would still have been 57 to 71 months, see United States v. Bradford,

447 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029 (8th Cir. 2006), and his criminal history was in fact

significant. We conclude that the 48 month sentence for Anthony Gentile was

unreasonable.

The Government also challenges Sheila Gentile's sentence, arguing that a

departure was not warranted on the basis of her family ties and responsibilities and

that the resulting sentence was unreasonable. A district court may depart from the

guideline range if a defendant has significant family responsibilities such that

incarceration would cause unusual harm. See U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. This is a disfavored

basis for departure, however, see United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1023 (8th

Cir. 2006) and is not triggered by the kind of family hardships that are ordinarily

incident to incarceration. See U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 cmt. n.1(B)(ii); see also See United

States v. Johnson, 908 F.2d 396, 399 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that "parents frequently

are separated from children during periods of incarceration"). Ms. Gentile does not

present the kind of unusually pressing family circumstances that would justify a §

5H1.6. departure of this magnitude. That she is a single mother caring for a young

child does not remove her situation from the heartland of cases. See United States v.

Harrison, 970 F.2d 444, 447-48 (8th Cir. 1992). There is no indication that her young

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
-7-

son requires special care or that her teenage nephew, for whom she also cares, would

suffer unusual harm without her constant attention and supervision. 

Nor can Ms. Gentile's sentence be characterized as reasonable in light of the §

3553(a) factors. While the district court has discretion to vary from the advisory

guidelines even where a departure would not be appropriate, see United States v.

Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1083-84 (8th Cir. 2005), it still must impose a reasonable

sentence that falls within the "range of choice dictated by the facts of the case," see

Haack, 403 F.3d at 1004. Ms. Gentile's personal circumstances are not so far removed

from those of a typical offender to justify such a significant variance from the

guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Although she did cooperate with

authorities and has for the most part remained clean and sober since the time of her

last arrest, her sentence was already reduced to account for those favorable

circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1; see also United States v. Rogers, 400 F.3d 640,

641-42 (8th Cir. 2005) (§ 3E1.1 accounts for ordinary post-offense rehabilitation).

As she acknowledged in her sentencing memorandum, "[t]hose involved in precursor

gathering nearly invariably are acting in the context of a methamphetamine addiction."

The gathering of precursor chemicals to facilitate the manufacture of

methamphetamine is a serious offense that exposes society to significant risks,

regardless of whether the offender herself is engaged in the actual cooking. See

generally Pub. L. 104-237, 110 Stat. 3099 (1996). The sentence of one day and

probation, where the lower end of the guideline range was 37 months, did not

adequately reflect the seriousness of Sheila Gentile's offense, nor the need to avoid

unwanted sentencing disparities. See United States v. Gall, 446 F.3d 884, 890 (8th

Cir. 2006) (discussing downward departure from 30 months to probation in context

of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), (6)). Although there may be circumstances in which

probation is appropriate even where the guidelines advise incarceration, see United

States v. Wadena, 470 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 2006), this is not such a case. We

conclude that Sheila Gentile's sentence must be vacated as unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141
-8-

For the reasons stated, the sentences imposed on both Anthony and Sheila

Gentile are vacated and the matters are remanded for resentencing.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 06-2269 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268141