Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04370/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04370-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4370

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Michael Washington, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2006

Filed: November 8, 2006

___________

Before RILEY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges, and KYLE, District Judge.1

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Michael Washington (Washington) appeals his sentence of 168 months’

imprisonment, arguing the district court2

 erred in denying his motion for downward

departure. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellate Case: 05-4370 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107785
-2-

Washington pled guilty to managing or controlling property for the purpose of

storing, distributing, and using a controlled substance, specifically cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2), (b). Before sentencing, Washington filed a motion

for downward departure based on an extraordinary physical impairment and an

overstated criminal history, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.4 and 4A1.3(b)(1). 

Washington first argued it was unclear whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

could care for his medical needs, most of which related to Washington’s morbid

obesity–Washington weighed approximately 800 pounds at the time of his arrest, but

was down to 574 pounds at the time of his sentencing. Washington’s other medical

conditions include hypertension, seizures, migraine headaches, and mild mental

retardation. 

The district court submitted Washington’s medical documentation to the BOP

to determine whether the BOP could meet Washington’s medical needs. The BOP’s

Regional Health Systems Administrator concluded:

Based on the provided information, I conclude the BOP has the

necessary staff and resources to properly manage Mr. Washington’s

medical needs. His conditions (individually or in combination) are not

uncommon among our inmate population. If sentenced to a period of

incarceration, Mr. Washington will be carefully assessed for assignment

to the appropriate BOP care level (1-4). His care level, custody level,

and security level will determine the institution to which he is

designated.

During his sentencing hearing, Washington moved for a continuance because

Dr. Mark Louviere (Dr. Louviere), a family practitioner who reviewed Washington’s

medical records, was unavailable to testify. The district court allowed Washington to

make a proffer of Dr. Louviere’s testimony, but denied the motion to continue

Appellate Case: 05-4370 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107785
3

Washington also contested two criminal history points assessed pursuant to

section 4A1.1(c). Washington accumulated seven criminal history points under

section 4A1.1(c), but the maximum point assessment allowed under section 4A1.1(c)

is four points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c). Because the exclusion of the two contested

points would not change Washington’s criminal history computation, the resolution

of these issues is unnecessary.

-3-

concluding, “even if [Dr. Louviere] were to tell me everything that you told me, it still

would not change my mind that this sentencing needs to go forward.”

Washington next argued his criminal history was overstated pointing out that

twelve of his fifteen criminal history points were assessed for driving offenses.

Washington contended his driving behavior did not correlate with recidivism in other

criminal behavior or indicate a criminal livelihood.3

After considering the arguments and exhibits presented by the parties, the

district court denied Washington’s motion for downward departure. Based on a total

offense level of 30 and a criminal history category of VI, the district court calculated

an advisory Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment. The district court

then sentenced Washington to 168 months’ imprisonment, reasoning a sentence at the

bottom of the Guidelines range satisfied all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and therefore was reasonable. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

The discretionary denial of a downward departure under sections 5H1.4 and

4A1.3 is unreviewable unless the district court failed to recognize its authority to

depart. United States v. Andreano, 417 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1118 (2006); United States v. Orozco-Rodriguez,

220 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2000).

Appellate Case: 05-4370 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107785
-4-

A. Extraordinary Physical Impairment 

Washington first contends the district court abused its discretion in determining

his health concerns did not merit a downward departure. Washington argues the

district court, at a minimum, should have heard additional evidence before making its

determination.

As an initial matter, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to continue Washington’s sentencing hearing due to the unavailability of Dr.

Louviere. See United States v. Thurmon, 368 F.3d 848, 851 (8th Cir. 2004) (“We will

reverse a district court’s decision to deny a motion for continuance only if the court

abused its discretion and the moving party was prejudiced by the denial.” (quotation

omitted)). By the morning of his sentencing hearing, Washington had already been

granted four continuances. The pivotal issue at sentencing was whether the BOP

could manage Washington’s medical condition. The district court submitted that

question to the BOP’s Regional Health Systems Administrator, who answered in the

affirmative. The district court indicated it reviewed Washington’s ample medical

records and accepted Washington’s proffer as to what Dr. Louviere would say if

called to testify. Because the BOP was better situated than Dr. Louviere to determine

its own ability to manage Washington’s medical condition, Washington’s inability to

present Dr. Louviere’s live testimony did not prejudice Washington. 

As to Washington’s motion for downward departure based on an extraordinary

physical condition, the district court recognized its discretionary authority to grant a

departure under section 5H1.4, stating that while “the physical condition of a

defendant under the advisory guidelines is not ordinarily relevant . . . an extraordinary

physical ailment may take a case out of the heartland of cases such that departure is

appropriate.” In determining whether Washington’s condition qualified as an

extraordinary physical ailment, the district court reviewed Washington’s medical

records, including those records relating to his morbid obesity, and acknowledged

Washington’s multiple medical problems. The district court took into account the

Appellate Case: 05-4370 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107785
-5-

section 5H1.4 factors, and questioned whether Washington’s “condition is such that

he would find imprisonment more than the normal hardship; whether imprisonment

would subject [Washington] to more than normal inconvenience or danger; [and]

third, whether [Washington’s] physical condition has any substantial present effect on

his ability to function.” The district court then determined (1) Washington was mobile

at the time of his arrest despite weighing 800 pounds, and continued to be mobile at

the time of his sentencing at his then-weight of 574 pounds; (2) Washington could

walk, ride in a car, and go about his daily business; and (3) the BOP’s letter verified

the BOP’s ability to manage Washington’s medical conditions and assured the court

the BOP would notify the court if a problem occurred. The district court concluded

it was more likely Washington would “receive better medical management in the BOP

because they’ll make sure that he’s compliant with the doctor’s orders.” The district

court did not abuse its discretion.

B. Criminal History

Washington also contends the district court erred in failing to grant his motion

for downward departure based on an overstated criminal history. We disagree. The

district court acknowledged its discretion under section 4A1.3(b)(1) to grant a

downward departure for overstated criminal history “where the facts support it,” but

determined Washington “has not proved . . . he is entitled to this departure or

variance.” While the district court recognized most of Washington’s criminal history

points were based on driving offenses, the district court reasoned that by repeatedly

driving a vehicle without a valid license, Washington demonstrated “his disrespect for

the law, his incorrigibility, and his likely recidivism.” The district court further noted

Washington’s criminal history also displayed convictions for other types of more

serious offenses, and concluded Washington’s “criminal history is not outside the

heartland of cases such that a departure is warranted.” The district court concluded,

although it had the authority to depart downward, the facts did not support such a

departure.

Appellate Case: 05-4370 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107785
-6-

III. CONCLUSION

On this record, we find the district court clearly recognized its discretionary

authority to depart under sections 5H1.4 and 4A1.3(b)(1), but declined to do so.

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the downward departure is unreviewable.

Washington does not argue, nor do we find, Washington’s sentence, which is within

the advisory Guidelines range, is unreasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413

F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005) (holding a sentence within

the advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable).

For the reasons stated, we affirm Washington’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4370 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107785