Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02257/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02257-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Lyle Overstreet
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

U . F I .L J2j i) mt.ed Stat~ Court f __ TL,,.. , .... c: CJ Ap;.:--nb c-. •• t....1 :rcur'; 

APR 2 9 1992 

ROBE~ T L. HOEC 

Clerl: .KEE 

v. ) No . 91-2257 

JIM LYLE OVERSTREET, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)(D.C. No.CR-91-118-03-JB) 

) . (Dist. of N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Jim Lyle Overstreet appeals from a sentence imposed following 

his plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute more 

than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. S 846 . 

Overstreet's presentence report set forth a 

guideline imprisonment range of 21 to 27 months . 

sentencing 

Overstreet 

"concurr[ ed] in this computation." ( R. , Vol . I., Tab 23, p. 1). 

Nevertheless, he filed a motion for downward departure based on 

* 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 establi shing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

Appellate Case: 91-2257 Document: 010110246191 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 1
unique family responsibilities. Within his motion, Overstreet 

alleged that: he was a forty-year-old single parent of five 

dependent children, ages 12, 10, 7, 4, and 2• I the New Mexico 

Department of Human Services had confirmed that he was a good 

parent and the sole custodian of the children; incarceration for 

a lengthy period of time would cause his children to be placed in 

the care, custody, and control of the New Mexico Department of 

Human Resources; and his incarceration would ultimately lead to 

his children being placed in foster care. (R., Vol. I, Tab 23, 

p. 3) • 

During the sentencing hearing, the following colloquy 

occurred between the district court and defense counsel: 

THE COURT: All right, then we'll move to 

sentencing. Just bear with me here. At this time then, 

Mr. Fry [defense counsel], is there anything you wish to 

state to the Court on behalf of Mr. Overstreet, or you, 

Mr. Overstreet, personally to the Court before I impose 

sentence in this matter? 

MR. FRY: No, Your Honor, the only thing is I filed 

a motion for downward departure from guideline 

imprisonment range in this case, and I believe I've said 

everything that I needed to say in that particular 

motion. 

* * * 

THE COURT: Well, I've read your sentencing 

memorandum, and I appreciate the familial difficulties 

facing Mr. Overstreet, but those have been of some 

duration, and the Court does not feel that the Court can 

take those into consideration to award a downward 

departure. 

(R., Vol. III at p. 3). 

Thereafter, the court, after "taking judicial notice of the 

fact that defendant distributed 88.5 net pounds of marijuana and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2257 Document: 010110246191 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 2
was present in the vehicle containing the marijuana at the time of 

his arrest," id. at p. 4, sentenced Overstreet to 21 months 

imprisonment and three years supervised release. 

On appeal, Overstreet contends that the district court erred 

in finding that it lacked authority to grant his motion for a 

downward departure pursuant to u.s.s.G. § 5K2.0. 

argues: 

Overstreet 

The motion to depart downward from the guideline 

imprisonment range was made pursuant to U.S.S.G. S5K2.0 

and 18 u.s.c. 3553. The general theory allowing the 

sentencing court to impose a sentence outside the range 

established by the applicable guideline is found in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(b), allowing the departure if the Court 

finds, "that there exists an aggravating or mitigating 

circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately 

taken into consideration by the sentencing commission in 

formulating the guidelines that should result in a 

sentence different from that described." 

(Appellant's Brief In Chief at pp. 4-5) . 

Overstreet argues that the mitigating circumstances which 

support a downward departure are his unique family circumstances 

and that downward departure was approved "for the same reasons 

based on similar circumstances in the matter of United States v. 

Pena, 9 30 F. 2d 1486 ( 10th Cir. 1986) . " (Appellant's Brief In 

Chief at p. 5). Overstreet submits that inasmuch as the language 

used by the district court is ambiguous, "(t]he appropriate remedy 

in this case is a remand 

resentencing." Id. at p. 8. 

for clarification and 

The government responds that Pena is distinguishable in that 

defendant Pena's conduct "was an aberration from her usual 

conduct," United States v. Pena, 930 F.2d at 1495, whereas 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-2257 Document: 010110246191 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 3
Overstreet was "a primary force [who] was substantiall y involved 

in the negotiations," and whose "actions showed prior involvement 

and knowledge of the business." (Brief of Appellee at p. 15). 

The government also argues that we lack jurisdiction since "[i]t 

is well settled that discretionary decisions to depart are not 

reviewable, unless there is some ambiguity in the district court's 

ruling. United States v. Fox, 930 F.2d 820 (10th Cir. 1991), 

cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (1991)." (Brief of Appellee at p. 16). 

The government contends that the district court's finding was 

not ambiguous and that the district court declined to depart 

"because the familial situation was long standing and not because 

it did not have the authority." Id. The government also notes 

that under U.S.S.G. S SHl.6, p.s. (1988), "[f]amily ties and 

responsibilities and community ties are not ordinarily relevant in 

determining whether a sentence should be outside the guidelines." 

We agree with the government that Pena is distinguishable. 

We also agree that the district court did not find that it lacked 

authority to grant Overstreet's motion for a downward departure. 

Rather, the district court simply found that Overstreet's 

familial difficulties were not an aggravating or mitigating 

circumstance justifying a downward departure. 

Inasmuch as a defendant's right to appeal his sentence is 

governed by 18 u.s.c. § 3742{a), United States v. Bromberg, 933 

F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1991), and "[i]t is settled law in this 

circuit and others that a district court's discretionary refusal 

to depart downward from the guidelines does not confer appellate 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-2257 Document: 010110246191 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 4
jurisdiction under S 3742," id., Overstreet's sentence is affirmed 

and his appeal dismissed. The mandate shall issue forthwith, 

-5-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-2257 Document: 010110246191 Date Filed: 04/29/1992 Page: 5