Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02052/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02052-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Lowden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

. FILED 

Umted S,tates Court of AppeaJs 

r ench Circuit 

JUN 2 0 1990 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .I, 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

AARON LOWDEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2052 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. NO. CR 88-352) 

Theresa E. Storch, Assistant Federal Defender, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant. 

Jim Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney (William L. Lutz, 

United States Attorney, and Joe M. Romero, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorney, on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney 

for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

Aaron Lowden's conviction was affirmed the first time we 

considered this case. United States v. Lowden, 900 F.2d 213, 217 

(10th Cir. 1990). He also challenged the district court's decision not to depart downward from the range of sentences prescribed 

by the sentencing guidelines. Because it was not clear from the 

record whether the district court declined to depart because it 

thought itself powerless to do so or because it felt that the 

Appellate Case: 89-2052 Document: 01019867889 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 1 
facts simply did not warrant it, 1 we deferred our review of the 

sentence until the trial court "inform[ed] us whether or not it 

thought it had the power to make a downward departure based upon 

the circumstances p~offered by Lowden." Id. at 217-18. We have 

received the district court's elucidation of the sentence. 

Regarding six of the seven reasons which Lowden thought 

merited departure, the court informs us that it believed that it 

had the power to depart, but it declined to do so. Such decisions 

are not reviewable. United States v. Richardson, No. 89-1066, 

slip op. at 5-6 (10th Cir. Apr. 20, 1990); United States v. Davis, 

No. 89-1086, slip op. at 10 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 1990). 

Regarding one issue, the court informs us that it thought 

itself powerless to depart, i.e., that the matter was not "'an 

1 The court stated that Lowden's motion to depart 

"does not state the grounds on which I could depart from 

the guidelines and I will therefore deny the motion. 

[,111 am very much concerned, of course, about the 

circumstances under which the crime of which Mr. Lowden 

was convicted took place .••. I'm afraid, however, 

that! simply cannot use that circumstance as a basis 

for departing below the guidelines .•.• " 

United States v. Lowden, 900 F.2d at 217 (emphasis added). 

The ambiguity about why the motion was denied overcame "our 

usual presumption .•• that a district court is aware of the law 

that it is called upon to apply." United States v. Russell, 870 

F.2d 18, 20 (1st Cir. 1989). We presume that refusals to depart 

are knowing exercises of the district court's discretion. The 

court's statement of "the reasons for its imposition of the 

particular sentence" required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) need not 

include the reasons for denying a request for departure. 

However, when the district court elaborates upon its denial 

of the departure request as it did here, we must be able to 

determine whether the court is exercising its discretion not to 

depart, or believes that it lacks any discretion to depart. That 

is what we meant when we stated earlier that "[t]he reasoning 

behind a court's departure decision should be clearly stated," 

Lowden v. United States, 900 F.2d at 217. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2052 Document: 01019867889 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 2 
aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a 

degree[,] not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines.'" United States 

Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual§ 5K2.0, p.s. (Nov. 1989) 

(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)). We have jurisdiction to review 

this decision because a sentence imposed within the guideline 

range only because the court erroneously believed that the 

guidelines did not permit a downward departure is a sentence 

"imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing 

guidelines," 18 u.s.c. § 3742(a)(2). United States v. Davis, No. 

89-1086, slip op. at 13 n.7; accord United States v. Ortez, No. 

89-3137 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 24, 1990); United States v. Rosen, 896 

F.2d 789, 792 (3d Cir. 1990); United States v. Fossett, 881 F.2d 

976, 979 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Russell, 870 F.2d 18, 

21 (1st Cir. 1989). Contra United States v. Franz, 886 F.2d 973, 

980-81 (7th Cir. 1989) (a refusal to depart cannot be appealed 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2) because departure involves 

policy statements rather than guidelines); United States v. Colon, 

884 F.2d 1550, 1554-55 (2d Cir.) (18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2) allows 

appeal "only for claims that a sentence was incorrectly calculated 

or was based on clearly erroneous factual findings"), cert. 

denied, 110 s. Ct. 553 (1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 

F.2d 135, 139 (5th Cir. 1989) (denial of a departure request does 

not ''involve any application of the guidelines"), cert. denied, 58 

U.S.L.W. 3694 (U.S. Apr. 30, 1990). 

The district court believed that it could not base a 

departure on the prevalence of alcohol abuse on Indian reserva-

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2052 Document: 01019867889 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 3 
tions. 2 Our review is plenary. 3 United States v. Lowden, 900 

F.2d at 217; see United States v. Smith, 888 F.2d 720, 723 (10th 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 1786 (1990). 

Alcohol abuse is not a proper ground for departure. u.s.s.G. 

§ 5Hl.4, p.s.; see also u.s.s.G. § 5K2.13, p.s. (diminished capacity not caused by intoxication may warrant a departure). Race is 

never relevant to a sentencing determination. U.S.S.G. § SHl.10, 

p 6 s O; see also 28 u.s.c. § 994(d) (sentences shall be "entirely 

neutral as to the race ..• of offenders'') •. Therefore, the 

district court correctly refused to depart based upon the 

prevalence of alcohol abuse on Indian reservations. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The motion to file a supplemental brief is denied. 

2 Both the defendant and the victim are Indians, and both were 

intoxicated when the crime occurred. 

3 This argument was almost waived by the defendant. The 

statement of the case in Lowden's brief lists the five factors for 

which Lowden sought a departure, see Brief of Appellant at 9-10, 

but the discussion later in the brief only mentions the four other 

than the prevalence of alcohol abuse on Indian reservations, see 

id. at 18-19. Moreover, the brief presents no specific argument 

regarding whether or not this circumstance was adequately 

considered by the Sentencing Commission. The question is very 

close, but we will not construe the brief as having waived the 

argument that the district court should have departed on this 

ground. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2052 Document: 01019867889 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 4