### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 1 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 02- 1321 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 00- 0045 1- CR -T -1 7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us ANDREW

W . SMITH, a.k .a. Drew, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 18, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , RO N E Y and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A j ury convicted appellee AndrewW . S m ith and hi s co-defendant, W alter R. Den ni e, on co un t o ne , con sp ira cy to po ss es s wi th in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne .Dennie w as also convic ted on count two, possession with intent to dist ribute coc aine. 1 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) ; 18 U.S.C. § 2. The g overnme nt does not contest the district cour t’s findingthat Smit h was e ligible f or 2 the safe ty valve r eduction allowingthe cour t to impos e a se ntence below Smith’s statutory mandatory

minimum , 120-121 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S .G. § 5C1.2. Co- de fe nd ant D e nn ie wa s se nte nc e d to 24 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt a nd 10 y e ars ’ 3 supervised r elea se. By his moti on to file an amended/supplementa l brief, Smith attempted to raise a 4 Apprendi/Blakely argument for the f irst time on appeal. Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 120 S.Ct . 2348 (2 00 0) ; Blakely

v. W ashington , 124 S.Ct . 2531 (2004). This cour t denied Smith’s moti on. Since we he ard or al ar gument, the Supreme Court de cided United States v. Book er , 125 S.Ct . 7 38 (2 00 5) . We c on c lud e that th e e xtent of the do wnwa

rd de pa rt ur e by the dis tr ic t c ourt

in this case wa s unrea sonable a nd/or clea rly err oneous, whe ther view ed in a pr e- Booke r , o r p os tBooke r , context. Id. 2 2 1 U.S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), 8 4 6 . Ats en t en ci n g , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n dth at Smit h ’s 1 health condit ion, non-Hodgkin ’ s lym phom a in rem issio n, satisfied as “ an ex tra or di na ry

ph y si cal im

pa irment” un de r U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1 .4 an d 5 K2.0 . Ac co rd i n g l y, th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d ep ar t ed d o wn wa rd l y 2 0 l ev el s fr o m Smit h ’s se nte nc ing gui de lin es r an ge ( 78 t o 98 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t) and s en te nc ed him 2 to t im e- se rv ed

( 35 d ay s) plu s 5 y ears ’ sup er vis ed r el ea se . W e he re by

va cate 3 Sm ith ’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r es en te nc ing c onsi ste nt w ith thi s op ini on. 4 I. Init s se nte nc ing m em or an dum , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed that i t f ound the letters w ritten by

Sm ith’s tr eating phy sicians to be extrem ely persuasive. I tSe c tio n 5 H1 .4 re a ds that “ an e xtra or din ary phy sic a l im

pa ir me nt m ay be a re a so n to 5 impose a sentenc e below the applicable guideline ra ng e; e.g ., in the case of a se riously infirm defe ndant, home dete ntion may be as e fficie nt as, and less c ostly than, imprisonment.” 3 concluded th at Sm ith had m et his burden of justify ing a downwar d departure un de r Sec ti on 5H1 .4 fo r “ an ex tra or di na ry ph y si cal im

pa irment.” 5 T he dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d th is c onc lus ionupo n th e fo llo w ing f ind ing s of

f ac t: (1 ) that, a s S m ithha s an e xtr ao rd inary phy sic al im

pa irm en t, any

se nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t c oul d be the e qui va le nt o f a de ath se nte nc e; ( 2) that the pr ospe ct of catc hin g avir

us, ba ct er ia l or

f unga l i nf ec tio n is m or e lik el y

in pr iso n, w ithit s atte ndant e xpe nse , m oni tor ing and c ar e; and ( 3) that S m ithr equir es c utt ing -e dge care from specialized phy sicians, not found in a prison setting . The district court m em or an dum

w as ba se d up on the c ourt’ s a ssu m pti on tha t S m ith ’ s c an ce r w as in rem issio n. I t did no t com m ent on the prob ability

of a r elapse. Sm ith argues that the Bureau of Pr isons is not able to prov ide adequate car e for his health care needs. A lthou gh no t argued in the briefs, or before the district court, the governm ent counters this argum ent by contendin g that, in the event that Sm ith’s c ondi tion d oes deteriorate in the future, requiring him to need ex tr ao rd inary

m ed ic al c ar e, the n, a t tha t t im e, the D ir ec tor of the Bure auof

P ri sons ha s th e au tho ri ty

to m ove the dis tr ic t c ourt f or ase nte nc e re duc tio n un de r 184

U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(1 ). Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . R abi ns , 63 F. 3d 72 1, 729 n.15 (8 Cir. th 19 95 ). Ci tin g th e ca se lawof

oth er c ir cu its , the gov er

nm en t c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s pr im ar

y r ea son fo r de part

ur e, that S m ith ’ s w eake ne d im m une sy stem causes him

to be vuln erable to future illnesses, is not eno ugh to satisfy Sect io n 5 H1.4 . Id
. (A ID S de fe ndant h ad not y et r ea ch ed a dvanc ed

sta ge j ust if

y ing ex tr ao rd inary

phy sic al im

pa irm en t; it is the duty

of the dis tr ic t c ourt t o a sse ss the de fe ndant’ s c ondi tio n a t the ti m e of se nte nc ing , r eg ar dle ss o f ble ak out loo k) ; see als o U nit ed Sta tes v . R iv era-M

ald onad o , 194 F . 3d 2 24, 235 -3 6 ( 1 Ci r. 199 9) st (H IVpositi ve defendant wa s in relatively goodhealth and did n ot have an ex tr ao rd inary

phy sic al im

pa irm en t) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . W

oody , 55 F . 3d 1 257, 127 5- 76 ( 7 Ci r. 199 5) ( H IVpos iti ve de fe ndant) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . T

hom as , 49 F . 3d 2 53, th 26 0- 61 (6 Cir . 19 95 ) (HIV p os it iv e d efen da nt ).

th T he gov er

nm en t a lso not es that si nc e his tr eatm en t, S m ithdoe s no t l ive in a bubb le , but

ha s c ont inu ed

to w ork a s aD ad e Co unty w at er and s ew er

te ch nic ian, m oni tor ing se w er

pip e pr es sur e, and i s th er eb y e xpos ed to co unt le ss b ac te ri a on a da ily ba sis . I n a ddi tio n, S m ithspo nsor s m usi ca l pr om oti ona l part ie s a tte nde d by hund reds of people, a gain sub j ecting him self to the risk of exposure to bacteria, vir us and f ungu s in fe ct ion s.5 II. Whe n ade part

ur e fr om the se nte nc ing gui de lin es is ap pr opr ia te , w e m ust ex am in e whe th er t he ex te nt of t he de pa rtu re i s re as on ab le . United States v. W il li ams , 989 F. 2d 11 37, 1140 (11 Cir. 1993 ). In evaluating whether a departure th is r ea sona ble , w e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or and i ts le ga l c onc lus ion s de nov o. U nit ed Sta tes v . Sim m ons , 368 F . 3d 1 335, 134 2 ( 11 th Cir. 2004 ). III . The district court in this case at the tim e of sentencing properly com puted Sm ith ’ s ba se of

fe nse le ve l un de r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , usi ng f ac ts n ot f ound by the j ur y , but pr es en te d to the c ourt a t se nte nc ing . I t the n de part ed downw ar dly 20 levels from

a guidelines range of 78-98 m onth s, f indin g that Sm ith had an ex tr ao rd inary

phy sic al im

pa irm en t un de r Se ct ion5H 1. 4. I t se nte nc ed him to onl y 35 day s, f or tim e served, when his co-defe ndant was sentenced to 20 y ears. U nder a de novo r ev ie w , w e do n ot a gr ee w iththe le ga l c onc lus ionthat S m ith ’ s no nHodgkin’s lym

phom a, in rem issio n, is the equivalent of an extraordinary phy sical im pa irment f

orpu rp os es of S ect io n 5 H1.4 at t hi s t im e. Sim m ons , 368 F. 3d at 1342
.The Dire ctor of the Bur eau of Prisons is on alert to file a petition for a sentenc e 6 reduc tion with the dist rict cour t under Sec tion 3582(c) should Smith’s cance r, now in re mission, return. 6 Init s f ind ing s of

f ac t, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that t o su bj ec t S m ithto a conditi on of long -term

confinem ent in the penitent iary would be a death sentence, as he w oul d be e xpos ed

to m or e ba ct er ia , vir

use s and f

ungi in pr iso n, and b e denied cuttin g-edge m edical treatm ent. W e disagree. Id
. 6 IV. Regardless of w hether, in a pre- Booker world, the sentencing gu idelines are int er pr et ed a s m an da tor

y , or now , in a post - Booker

world, they

are considered advis or y , it w as unr ea sona

ble and/ or

c le ar ly e rr one ous fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de part downw ar dly

a s f ar a s it did in thi s c as e. S m ith ’ s se nte nc e is v ac at ed in its en tir ety and this c as e is r em an de d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r es en te nc ing in ac co rd an ce w iththi s op ini on. SENTENCE VACATE D; REM ANDED for RESENTENCING.