F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 30, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1345 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 03-00182 -CR- C-S UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us KENNET H K. LIVE SAY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Alabam a

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(Augus t 30 , 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: The governm ent appeals the sentence im posed agains t De fendant-Appellee K en ne th K . L ive say , f

orm er c hie f inf orm at ionof

fi ce r an d a ssi stant c ontro lle r of H ea lth So uthCo rp or at ion , upo n L ive say ’ s pl ea of gui lty to a thr ee -c ount in fo rm at io n c ha rg in g c on sp ira cy to co m m it wire an d s ecu rit ie s fr au d, 1 8 U.S.C. § 371, a nd f

al sif ic at ionof f inanc ia l i nf

orm at ionf

ile d w iththe S ec ur iti es E xc hange Co m m is si on , 15 U.S.C. §§ 78 m (b )(2 )(A), 7 8m (b )(5 ), 78 ff , an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. The in fo rm at io n a ls o i nc lu de d a for fei tu re co un t, 1 8 U.S.C. § 98 1 a nd 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c ). T he gov er

nm en t c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n, a ft er

the gove rn m en t m ove d un de r U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 f or adownw ar d de part

ur e ba se d on Livesay ’ s subs tantial assistance, the district court granted a 18-level downw ard de part ur e. W e va cate L ive say ’ s se nte nc e in i ts e nti re ty a nd r em an d th is c as e to the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or r es en te nc ing . Livesay pleaded guiltyto all three counts und er a plea agre em ent in which the gov er nm en t a gr ee d to r ec om

m en d th at L ive say be giv enathr ee -l ev el r ed uc tio n to h is o ff en se le ve l f

or his a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity

a nd a lso r ep re se nte d it would file a m otion for a downwar d departure, pursuant to § 5K1.1 and 18 U. S. C. §355 3(e), if the governm ent determ ined that Livesay ’ s cooperation and su bstantial3

assistance warranted such a m otion . Livesay and the governm ent stipu lated to an ad j ust ed of fe nse le ve l of

28; L ive say ’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y w as I , a nd the re sul tin g se nte nc ing r an ge w as 78 t o 97 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. T he gov er

nm en t m ad e a § 5K 1. 1 m oti on f or adownw ar d de part

ur e in whic h th e gove rn m en t no te d, am ong oth er

thi ngs, that L ive say

ha d “ tr uth fu lly a nd c om ple te ly c onf es se d hi s m isdeeds;” “ been available on a continuo us and regular basis;” “ provided inv al uable a ssi stanc e” in he lpi ng the gov er nm en t t o un de rs tand the w ay the m as siv e fr au d w as c ondu ct ed ; “pr ovi de d th e gove rn m en t w ithar oa dm ap ” of the ac co unt ing m an ipu la tio ns; a nd “ fa ci lit at ed both th e se curi ng o f gui lty ple as f ro m other co-conspirators and the prosecutio n of other indiv iduals y et to be convicted.” At s en te nc in g, t he go ve rn m en t ag ai n c hr on ic le d Li ve sa y ’s coo pe rat io n. Whe n qu er ie d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

bout w he the r L ive say

c oul d have a ssi ste d th e governm ent m ore, the governm ent acknowledged that Livesay had done all that ha d be ena ske d of

him . T he gov er

nm en t c al le d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a tte nti on t o th e fa ct that L ive say

w as a lr ea dy

r ec ei vin g th e be ne fi t of

a3- le ve l de part

ur e fo r acce ptance of re spon sibili ty and recom

m ended a downward departure of another three levels for a sentence of 60 m onth s’ im prisonm ent. T he governm ent stressed at se nte nc ing it s po sit ionthat a sub stanti al te rm

of im pr iso nm en t w as appr opr ia te puni shm ent for a m assive fraud. Questioning o f the governm ent by the district4

court seem s to sug gest that the gov ernm ent was not rew arding Livesay suf fi ci en tly ; the gov er

nm en t, in tur

n, not ed that a lot of oth er w itn es se s inthe c as e ha d pr ovi de d si m ilar inf

orm at ion . T he se nte nc ing c ourt de part ed downw ar d 18 levels to a level 10 which, when com bined with Livesay ’ s crim inal histo ry cat eg ory of I , y ie ld eda gu id el in e im pr is on m en t ra ng e o f si x t o t welv e m on th s. The governm ent objecte d to the reasonableness of the departure and asked that L ive say be se nte nc ed

to the m ax im

um of the de part

ur e se nte nc ing r an ge of

12 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. T he se nte nc e im pose d by the c ourt e lim inate d a ll im pr iso nm en t; it inc lud ed

a$10 , 000 fi ne , a$20 0 sp ec ia l a sse ssm en t, a nd a p r o b a t i o n a ry t e rm o f

6 0 mo n t h s w i t h as p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f 6 mo n t h s ’ h o me de te nti on o n e ac h of

Co unt s O ne a nd T w o, to run c onc ur re ntl y . L ive say

w as a lso or de re d to f

or fe it $750 , 000, w hic h w as to be m ad e av ai la ble to the vic tim s of

the fr au d. A ft er

the dis tr ic t c ourt de part ed downw ar d 18 le ve ls, in ex pli catio n of the sentence im

posed, the district court said on ly that it was “based on th e very subs tanti al na tur e of

the de fe ndant’ s c oope ratio n and a ssi stanc e. ” O the r than th is com m ent, the r ecord re veals no explanatio n for the considerable downwa rd de part ur e in the se nte nc e im

pose d.5

In this appeal, the governm ent concedes that a departure wa s war ranted unde r § 5K 1. 1. T he gov er nm en t c ont en ds, how ev er , that the e xte nt o f the departure w as unreasonable under the facts of this case, unjustified by the court an d c onst itu te d an a

buse of dis cr et ion . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bl as , 360 F . 3d 1 268, 1274 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) ( the e xte nt o f de part ur e is r ev ie w ed

und er a n a buse of th discretion stand ard). Se ct ion5K 1. 1 a llo w s th e se nte nc ing c ourt, upo n m oti on o f the gov er nm en t, to d ep ar t do w nw ar d ba se d onthe de fe ndant’ s su bst an tia l a ssi stanc e “ fo r re as ons state d. ” U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1( a) . T hose r ea sons m ay inc lud e, a m ong oth er s, consideration o f:

(1 ) the c ourt’ s e va luatio n of the sig nif

ic an ce a nd use fu lne ss o f the de fe ndant’ s a ssi stanc e, takin g in to co nsi de ratio n th e gove rn m en t’ s e va luatio n of the as sis tanc e re nde re d; (2 ) the tr uth fu lne ss, c om

ple te ne ss, a nd r el ia

bil ity of a ny inf orm at ionor

te sti m ony

pr ovi de d by

the de fe ndant; (3) the nature and extent of the defendant’s a ssistance; (4 ) an y inj ur y suf fe re d, or a ny dange r or

r isk of inj ur y to the defendant or his fam ily resulting from

his assist ance; (5) the tim eliness of the defendant’ s assistance. U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1( a) . Whil e m uc h latit ude is to b e af

fo rd ed the se nte nc ing j udge i n as s es s i n g th e n at u re , e x t en tan ds i g n i fi ca n ce o f a n i n d i v i du al d ef en d an t ’s subs tanti al a ssi stanc e, se e U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 c om m en t. ( ba ck g’ d) , “ [t ] he6

se nte nc ing j udge m

ust . . . state the r ea sons f

or r ed uc ing ase nte nc e unde r thi s section.” I d. (c iting 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(c)) . And 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(c) provides that w he n ase nte nc ing j udge im pose s ase nte nc e out sid e the gui de lin es r an ge , the specific re ason for such sentence m ust be stated with specificity in the written or de r of j udgm en t and c onvi ct ion . W e re vie wadownw ar d de part ur e fr om the gui de lin es r an ge f

or

“ reasonableness.” See United States v. Blas, 360 F.3d at 1274. As w e explained in Blas, “ [w ] hen a sentencing court departs from the Guidelines, a

review ing court de te rm ine s th e re as ona

ble ne ss o f the de part

ur e in l igh t of

the f ac tor s to be considered in im

posin g the sentence, and the reasons the dis trict court provided fo r de part ing . ” I d. A nd, in as se ssi ng the § 5K 1. 1 f ac tor s, the se nte nc ing c ourt i s re qui re d to a ff

or d “ subs tanti al w ei ght

. . . to the gov er

nm en t’ s e va luatio n of

the ex te nt of d efen da nt ’s ass is ta nc e....” U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 , comm en t. n .3. Although the departure in this case -- from a level 28 to a level 10 -- wa s dr am at ic , the r ec or d pr ovi de s us w ithsc an t ba sis to as se ss r ea sona ble ne ss: the se nte nc ing c ourt no te d th e “ ve ry sub stanti al na tur e” of

L ive say ’ s c oope ratio n bu t fa ile d e nti re ly

to ad dr es s sp ec if

ic al ly the § 5K 1. 1 f

ac tor s or oth er w ise to state re as ons supp ortin g th e ex te nt o f its de part ur e. Whil e w e m ay

se nse f ro m the s en t en ci n g tra n s cr i p tth at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d ee m ed t h e g o v ern m en t ’sL i v e s ay ar gu e s th at th e g o v e r n m e n t m a d e n o o b

j e c t i o n t o th e s e n t e n c i n g c o urt ’ s f a i l ur e to 1 articulate its co n s id e r a

ti o n o f th e r eleva nt sentencingfac tors and, conse quently , has wa ived objection to the absenc e of e x planation. But the gover nment did object to the re asonable ness of the de parture ; we have no m ea n s to determine the r easona bleness of the sentenc ing c ourt’s sentenc e without kn ow ingthe re a so ns fo r t he de pa rt ur e . T he re c or d m us t be su sc e pti ble to m e anin g fu l a pp e llate revie w. L ivesay ’s s entenc ing oc curr ed bef ore the Supreme Court’s de cision in Booker , and no B ooker 2 issue was ra ised in this appeal. None theless, B ooker w ill apply at re sentenc ing: th e sentencing court will not be bound by the guidelines, but the guideline sentenc e -- including application of a ny permitted depa

rtures - - will need f

irst to be deter

mined and then se ntence imposed after consideration of the fac tors set forth in 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Crawf ord, 407 F. 3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8-79 (11 Cir. 2005). I f a se ntence is imposed outsi de the guidelines rang e, the th sentenc ing c ourt must state the rea sons for the imposition of that sentence . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). 7 re co m m en de d se nte nc e ins uf

fi ci en t pay

ba ck f or L ive say ’ s pl ea

a nd c oope ratio n, we can only

speculate about the dist rict court’ s reasoning. W e do not say that ev er y § 5K 1. 1 f

ac tor m ust be se parate ly

a ddr es se d inthe or de r of j udgm en t and co nvi ct ion ; w e say

onl y that this r ec or d f

ai ls t o pr ovi de the m ini m um ind ic ia re qui re d to a llo wus t o r ev ie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss. 1 Ac cordingly , w e vacate Livesay ’ s sentence and rem and to the dis trict court fo r re se nte nc ing c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. 2 VACATED AN D REMANDED.