Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02274/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Joel Bromberg
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

PILBD 

Uaieed Stat11 Coot' of AJpoals 

Tenth Ci!'o1it 

MAY 2 0 1Qg1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2274 

LEONARD JOEL BROMBERG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CR-89-179) 

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

United States Attorney, James D. Tierney, Assistant United States 

Attorney, with him on the brief) Albuquerque, New Mexico, for 

plaintiff-appellee. 

David L. Plotsky, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for defendant-appellant. 

Before McKAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District 

Judge.* 

BROWN, District Judge. 

*The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States District Senior Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 1 
Defendant-appellant pled guilty to one count of possession 

with intent to distribute cocaine. (21 u.s.c. §§ 841(a} (1}, 

841 (b) (1} (B)}. The district court departed downward from the 

guidelines and sentenced appellant to 66 months imprisonment and 

four years of supervised release. Appellant now contends that the 

district court erroneously refused to depart further downward in 

imposing the sentence. We conclude that we have no jurisdiction 

over the appeal and we therefore dismiss the case. 

Appellant does not challenge the correctness of the guideline 

range applied to him. He concedes that the appropriate range under 

the guidelines was 78 to 97 months imprisonment (resulting from a 

total offense level of 28 and a criminal history category of I). 

The minimum sentence for appellant's offense was set by statute at 

60 months. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Government 

recommended that the court depart below the guideline range and the 

statutory minimum, however, because the defendant had provided 

substantial assistance to the Government. See 18 u.s.c. § 3553(e} 

and u.s.s.G. § 5K1.1. The Government recommended a sentence of 48 

months imprisonment. 

The district court found that a downward departure was 

warranted under the circumstances but concluded that a departure 

below the statutory minimum "does not meet the ends of justice nor 

satisfy the sentencing goals of punishment and deterrence." The 

court indicated that it would be inappropriate to grant the 

defendant the full extent of the departure he sought because it 

would result in a lower sentence than the court had imposed on a 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 2 
less culpable co-defendant. 1 The court imposed the same sentence 

on appellant that had been imposed on appellant's co-defendant--

66 months. 

The parties disagree as to whether this court has jurisdiction 

to determine the defendant's claims. This issue is controlled by 

18 u.s.c. § 3742(a), which governs a defendant's right to appeal 

his sentence. That section provides in part: 

(a). Appeal by a defendant.-- A defendant may 

file a notice of appeal in the district court 

for review of an otherwise final sentence if 

the sentence--

(1) was imposed in violation of law; [or] 

(2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect 

application of the sentencing guidelines 

Id. Section 3742 establishes a limited practice of appellate 

review of criminal sentences. S.Rep. No. 225, 98thCong., 2d Sess. 

149, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3182, 3332. 

Appellant makes two arguments in support of his assertion that 

the district court 1 s sentence is appealable under § 3742 (a). 

First, he argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of law 

because it is contrary to 18 u.s.c. § 3553(a) (6). This section 

directs a district court to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have 

been found guilty of similar conduct" in determining an appropriate 

sentence. Second, appellant states that the sentence was 

imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines 

1 This co-defendant • s sentence was affirmed on appeal in 

United States v. Sorensen, 915 F.2d 599 (lOth Cir. 1990), cert. 

denied, 111 s.ct. 1002 (1991). 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 3 
because it is inconsistent with the guidelines• policy of 

eliminating unwarranted sentencing disparities. 

It 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 jurisdiction under § 3742. 

United States v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1529-30 (lOth Cir.), cert. 

denied, 111 S.Ct. 155 (1990); United States v. Richardson, 901 F.2d 

867, 870 (lOth Cir. 1990); United States v. Lowden, 905 F.2d 1448, 

1449 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s.ct. 206 (1990). As we noted 

in Davis, "if we were to interpret section 3742 (a) (2) to allow 

appeals for departure-related decisions as incorrect applications 

of the guidelines, we would render section 3743(a) (3) redundant. 

Because Congress could not have intended such a specific provision 

to be mere surplusage, we conclude that Congress did not intend for 

departure-related decisions, including refusals to depart, to be 

appealable under 3742(a) (2) ." Davis, 900 F.2d at 1529. 

The fact that the guidelines do not allow for appellate review 

when a district court chooses not to grant a downward departure 

compels the conclusion that we also lack jurisdiction where the 

defendant complains that the district court's grant of a downward 

departure is too small. We agree with those circuits holding that 

the extent of downward departure chosen by the district court is 

normally not appealable by a defendant under § 3742. See United 

States v. Hazel, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 4085, *10 (D.C. Cir., Mar. 

15, 1991) (Granting the defendant's request for review in this case 

would place us in the inconsistent position of being able to review 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 4 
the methodology and justifications for the degree of downward 

departure, while leaving us unable to review a decision not to 

depart in the first place); United States v. Gant, 902 F.2d 570, 

572-73 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 

(1st Cir. 1990) (The statute affords no grounds for the beneficiary 

of a departure decision to complain that the deviation should have 

been greater); United States v. Wright, 895 F.2d 718, 720 (11th 

Cir. 1990) (To permit a defendant to appeal a sentence below the 

guideline range would render meaningless the provision specifically 

allowing a defendant to appeal an upward departure) . See also 

United States v. Colon, 884 F.2d 1550, 1556 (2nd Cir. 1989) (The law 

does not provide appellate review for defendants facing long 

sentences that include small downward departures.) This result is 

consistent with Congress' intent to avoid unnecessary appeals by 

limiting review of upward departures to defendants and downward 

departures to the Government. See United States v. Gant, supra; 

18 u.s.c. §§ 3742 (a) (3) and 3742 (b) (3). 

Appellant's contention that the sentence imposed resulted from 

an incorrect application of the guidelines or was in violation of 

the law is not persuasive. The record clearly indicates that the 

district court was aware that it had discretion to determine the 

extent of an appropriate departure. After finding that the 

departure recommended by the Government did not meet the ends of 

justice nor satisfy the sentencing goals of punishment and 

deterrence, the court explained, "I previously expressed my concern 

over the inequity that would result in sentencing between this 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 5 
defendant and co-defendant Sorensen if I totally accepted the 

Government's recommendations." The court added: "While the motives 

of the Government may be well-intentioned, the practical effect of 

its request would result in a disparity and unfairness in 

sentencing. It would result in the less culpable co-defendant 

receiving a harsher sentence than this defendant, a result which 

is contrary to the intent and spirit of the new sentencing 

guidelines." Tr. Supp. Vol. III at 3-4. The court's explanation 

that he would not totally accept the Government's recommendation 

because the full extent of the departure sought would cause 

"inequity" and "unfairness" is a clear indication that the court 

was aware of its power to determine the proper degree of departure. 

The court's statement that a lower sentence would be contrary to 

"the spirit" of the guidelines and would cause "disparity" does not 

indicate that court believed it was barred from considering whether 

the full departure was warranted. As such, this case is 

distinguishable from United States v. Lowden, 900 F.2d 213 (lOth 

Cir. 1990) (Lowden I), in which we remanded the case to the district 

court because the record was unclear as to whether the sentencing 

judge understood that he had the power to determine whether a 

departure from the guidelines was warranted. Id. at 217-18. See 

also United States v. Lowden, 905 F.2d 1448 (lOth Cir. 1990) (Lowden 

II) ("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."); Davis, 900 F.2d at 1530 (Sentence is 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 6 
reviewable if a district court does not exercise its discretion to 

depart downward because it feels legally prohibited from doing so). 

Appellant has not shown that the sentence violates any 

specific guideline provision or article of law. Rather, appellant 

bases his jurisdictional argument on the premise that the district 

court misunderstood the general principle of proportionality that 

underlies the guidelines. The determination of whether a downward 

departure is warranted and the appropriate degree of departure is 

committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. In essence, 

appellant's argument boils down to a contention that the district 

court abused its discretion by not granting a greater departure. 

Cf. United States v. Heilprin, 910 F.2d 471, 475 (7th Cir. 1990) 

(Appellant's disproportionality argument appears to be an 

expression of his disappointment at the extent of the departure he 

did not receive.) The argument that the district court abused its 

discretion, however, does not assert a violation of the law or an 

incorrect application of the guidelines. United States v. Havens, 

910 F.2d 703, 707 (lOth Cir. 1990). The sentence imposed was 

consistent with the guidelines and the applicable law. 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-2274 Document: 01019292936 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 7