Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01892/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01892-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David L. Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1892

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

David L. Robinson, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2005

Filed: June 6, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

In this case that was briefed and argued before the Supreme Court’s decision

in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), David L. Robinson pleaded guilty

to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). At sentencing, Robinson moved for a downward departure

on the ground that he has an “extraordinary physical impairment.” See U.S.S.G.

§ 5H1.4 (p.s.). The district court1

 declined to depart and sentenced Robinson to thirty

months in prison. Robinson appeals, arguing that the district court misapplied

Appellate Case: 04-1892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911628
2

The PROTECT Act, Pub. L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (April 30, 2003), while

mandating de novo review of district court departures, see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), did

not expand our jurisdiction to review discretionary departure denials. See, e.g.,

United States v. Linn, 362 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2004).

-2-

§ 5H1.4 when it required him to show that the federal Bureau of Prisons would be

unable to care for his medical needs. We affirm. 

1. Subchapter 5H of the Guidelines contains policy statements that “address

the relevance of certain offender characteristics to the determination of whether a

sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. H,

intro comment. Section 5H1.4 provides in relevant part:

Physical condition or appearance, including physique, is not ordinarily

relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted.

However, an extraordinary physical impairment may be a reason to

depart downward . . . .

A departure based on a characteristic that is “not ordinarily relevant” to sentencing

“should occur only in exceptional cases, and only if the circumstance is present in the

case to an exceptional degree.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 comment. n.3(C). 

Prior to Booker, this court consistently held that we lack jurisdiction to review

a district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward from the applicable

guidelines range “unless the district court had an unconstitutional motive or

erroneously believed that it was without authority to grant the departure.” United

States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 335 F.3d 793, 799 (8th Cir. 2003); see United States v.

Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000, 1003-05 (8th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).2 In this case,

the district court was clearly aware of its departure authority under § 5H1.4 but found

that Robinson does not suffer from an extraordinary physical impairment within the

meaning of that policy statement. The Evidente line of cases does not foreclose our

Appellate Case: 04-1892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911628
-3-

review of that finding. In Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 201 (1992), the

Supreme Court concluded that the district court, in departing downward, had

erroneously construed a Guidelines policy statement that prohibited the departure.

The Court held that the resulting sentence must be remanded because it was “imposed

as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.” Likewise, an

erroneous finding that the defendant lacks an extraordinary physical impairment is

an erroneous decision that the court lacks authority to depart. Thus, consistent with

Williams, we held in United States v. Rabins, 63 F.3d 721, 728-29 (8th Cir. 1995),

that whether the defendant has an extraordinary physical impairment for purposes of

§ 5H1.4 is a question of fact that we review for clear error. 

In this case, the district court heard extensive evidence concerning Robinson’s

physical condition. In the twenty years since he was severely injured in an auto

accident, Robinson has undergone twelve to fifteen major surgeries. He suffers from

chronic pain, double vision, nausea, and migraines. His brother, a physician, testified

that Robinson also has mental illnesses including severe panic attacks and hysteria.

Dr. Robinson opined that incarceration would subject his brother to significant

dangers and undoubtedly worsen his condition. On the other hand, the government

presented evidence that Robinson can drive a car, lift up to fifty pounds, hunt, and

spend the night without a comfortable bed. A physician at the U.S. Center for Federal

Prisoners reviewed Robinson’s medical records and concluded “to a reasonable

degree of medical certainty that Mr. Robinson’s medical and mental health care needs

can be appropriately treated at a federal medical center if he is sentenced to a term of

imprisonment.” 

The district court found that Robinson does not suffer from an extraordinary

physical impairment because he failed to prove that the Bureau of Prisons would be

unable to care for his medical needs. After careful review of the record, we conclude

that this finding is not clearly erroneous. “An ailment . . . might usefully be called

‘extraordinary’ if it is substantially more dangerous for prisoners than for nonAppellate Case: 04-1892 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911628
-4-

prisoners.” United States v. Johnson, 318 F.3d 821, 826 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation

omitted); see Rabins, 63 F.3d at 729. Though Robinson’s physical condition creates

special needs, he has not shown that the needs are extraordinary in the sense that the

Bureau of Prisons will be unable to accommodate his condition and provide

appropriate medical care. Thus, the district court correctly understood that it lacked

authority to depart under § 5H1.4 of the mandatory Guidelines in effect when

Robinson was sentenced because he did not prove that he suffers from an

extraordinary physical impairment.

2. In Booker, to remedy Sixth Amendment violations inherent in the

mandatory Guidelines, the Supreme Court severed the provision of the Sentencing

Reform Act that made the Guidelines mandatory. The Court also severed 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(e) and replaced that detailed appellate review provision with a more general

reasonableness standard of review. Under Booker, the district court continues to

determine the appropriate Guidelines sentence, and we continue to review that

determination for errors of law, such as an erroneous conclusion that the court lacked

authority to depart under the Guidelines. In addition, by decreeing the Guidelines to

be advisory, Booker granted the district court some discretion to impose a sentence

not previously authorized by the mandatory Guidelines regime, applying the

sentencing objectives and factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review the

final sentence for reasonableness. See United States v. Rogers, 400 F.3d 640 (8th

Cir. 2005). 

In this case, the district court correctly applied the Guidelines but

(understandably) committed Booker error by sentencing Robinson under the

assumption that the Guidelines were mandatory. Robinson’s pre-Booker plea

agreement expressly waived any challenge to the constitutionality of the Guidelines,

so he is arguably precluded from arguing that Booker expanded our jurisdiction to

review for reasonableness the discretionary denial of a downward departure. But in

any event, the issue was not raised in the district court, and there was no plain error.

Appellate Case: 04-1892 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911628
-5-

See United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, 2005 WL 1039976 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005)

(en banc).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1892 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911628