Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f206100/206125.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 00:35:14
Document Index: 72062257

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3742', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 3742', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Reply Brief and Opposition to Cross-Appeal for Appellant United States of America : U.S. v. Birj Deckmejian
v. BIRJ DECKMEJIAN,
REPLY BRIEF AND OPPOSITION TO CROSS-APPEAL
FOR APPELLANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JAMES M. GRIFFIN	Deputy Assistant Attorneys General	JOHN J. POWERS, III
STEVEN J. MINTZ	Attorneys
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' APPEAL
ARGUMENT	The District Court Erred by Granting the Downward Departure	Deckmejian's Circumstances Are Not So Extraordinary as to Justify a Downward Departure	The District Court Made No Finding that the Bureau of Prisons
The District Court Erred by Refusing to Impose Any Fine	UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO CROSS-APPEAL
ARGUMENT	At Present, There Is No Blakely Issue in this Circuit	In the Alternative, Deckmejian's Failures to Object Bar Any Relief	CONCLUSION	CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)	Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004)	Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997)	Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)	McEwan v. United States, 279 F. Supp.2d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)	United States v. Altman, 48 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1995)	United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001)	United States v. Gonzalez, 945 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1991)	United States v. Huerta, 371 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2004)	United States v. Jimenez, 212 F. Supp.2d 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)	United States v. Johnson, 318 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2003)	United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002)	United States v. Kostakis, 364 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2004)	United States v. Krilich, 257 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2001),
cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1163 (2002)	United States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1990)	Cases:
United States v. Leiva-Deras, 359 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004)	United States v. Martinez, 207 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000)	United States v. Martinez-Guerrero, 987 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1993)	United States v. Mincey, 380 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2004)	United States v. Morgan, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL 2251664
(2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2004)	United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622 (2d Cir. 2002)	United States v. Persico, 164 F.3d 796 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1039 and 528 U.S. 870 (1999)	United States v. Restrepo, 999 F.2d 640 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 954 (1993)	United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996)	United States v. Sentamu, 212 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2000)	United States v. Slaughter, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL 2303442
(2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2004)	United States v. Taubman, No. 02-1253
and 297 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2002)	United States v. Thorn, 317 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2003)	FEDERAL STATUTES AND RULES
18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)	Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)	MISCELLANEOUS
USSG § 5H1.1 (2000)	USSG § 5H1.4 (2000)	REPLY IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' APPEAL
The District Court Erred by Granting the Downward Departure
Deckmejian's Circumstances Are Not So Extraordinary as to Justify a Downward Departure
Deckmejian's brief misleadingly attempts to portray the entire dispute over
the downward departure as factual, so that every decision of the district court
becomes subject to clearly erroneous review. But that is not the law. Whether the
"departure is justified by the facts of the case" is an issue of law that this Court
reviews de novo. United States v. Kostakis, 364 F.3d 45, 51 (2d Cir. 2004);
accord United States v. Huerta, 371 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v.
Leiva-Deras, 359 F.3d 183, 188 (2d Cir. 2004). Deckmejian's position
erroneously reads out of existence 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), as amended by the
PROTECT Act to require de novo review of departures. Moreover, in this case there is no material factual dispute about the nature of
Deckmejian's medical conditions. The question for decision is not whether
Deckmejian has a particular condition, or even how serious a particular condition
is, because the medical witnesses largely agreed on those subjects. Nor is this a
case about the credibility of witnesses, because the district court found both Dr.
Berenson and Dr. Foley to be credible. A-118 ("Now, both of the doctors who
testified are fine professionals. . . . But I don't really have any lack of respect for
either one, Dr. Berenson or Dr. Foley."); A-119-20 ("Dr. Foley has made a very
sincere analysis . . . . He is familiar with the type of medical facilities in a federal
prison to a degree that Dr. Berenson is not. So I certainly give weight to the
testimony of Dr. Foley."). Instead, the question posed by this appeal is the legal issue of whether
Deckmejian's conditions, even as described by his own doctor, rise to the level
that warrants a departure. On that question, the district court bears a heavy burden
to justify the departure, because "[t]he standards for a downward departure on
medical grounds are strict." United States v. Persico, 164 F.3d 796, 806 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1039 and 528 U.S. 870 (1999); accord United States v.
Altman, 48 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 1995) (defendant must be "seriously infirm").
The downward departure here fails this standard because, even taking the
facts in the light most favorable to Deckmejian, his condition is hardly
extraordinary. As described by Dr. Berenson, Deckmejian's own doctor:
Deckmejian's cancer is in remission, and he requires only checkups at several
month intervals, A-76, 87, 90;
His diabetes is mild enough that it does not require medication, A-86;
His blood pressure is under control from medication, A-75, 83-84;
His reduced kidney function requires no separate medication, A-75-76;
His alleged sleep apnea is so inconsequential that Dr. Berenson did not even
mention it in his testimony. See also A-228 (no treatment required);(1)
His occasional episodes of diverticulitis are controlled by drinking liquids
and, if necessary, antibiotics, A-79;
He has varying levels of pain in his feet, A-77, but overall, Deckmejian's
conditions do not restrict him from working, traveling, or normal daily
activities, A-75, 87. Deckmejian cannot plausibly be described as "seriously infirm" or has having
any condition, individually or collectively, that is "extraordinary," USSG § 5H1.4,
for a 69-year old man. Deckmejian testified that he would be willing to work,
even in a grocery store. A-116. Even Dr. Berenson did not describe any of
Deckmejian's conditions as extraordinary, either in the sense of being extremely
rare or in the sense of being unusually severe. Accordingly, the downward
departure can be reversed as a matter of law without determining any of the
district court's factual findings to be clearly erroneous.
Nevertheless, the district court's most important factual determination was
clearly erroneous. The court based the departure entirely on Dr. Berenson's pre-sentencing letter, which offered the conclusory assertions that "Given
[Deckmejian's] age and condition, the possibility of death in the event of further
physical deterioration will be increased if he is incarcerated," and "the possibility
of incarceration in itself is enough to put him at the highest risk of physical
deterioration." A-121. But these assertions were undermined by Dr. Berenson's
admission, when asked by Deckmejian's counsel specifically why he thought
incarceration would adversely affect Deckmejian, that the entire adverse effect
would be Deckmejian not being able to telephone Dr. Berenson in the middle of
the night should the need arise. A-78-79. Dr. Berenson never gave a single
example of a medical treatment, procedure, or medication that Deckmejian needs
now, or might need in the future, that would not be available in prison. Indeed,
Dr. Berenson admitted that he had no familiarity with Bureau of Prisons medical
services or facilities. A-82. The conclusions in Dr. Berenson's letter therefore
were simply speculation, because Dr. Berenson had no knowledge of how
"incarceration" might differ from Deckmejian's current treatment. The district
court's finding that imprisonment might put Deckmejian at risk therefore was
clearly erroneous. The District Court Made No Finding that the Bureau of Prisons Would Be Unable to Care for Deckmejian's Medical Conditions
Deckmejian does not dispute that the district court made no finding on the
Bureau of Prisons' ability to accommodate Deckmejian's medical conditions. Instead, he contends that no such finding was necessary to justify the departure. Deckmejian is wrong. This Court's precedents require a medical condition that
cannot be accommodated in prison as a prerequisite to finding an "extraordinary
physical impairment." USSG § 5H1.4. But even if the law did not require a
finding on potential care in prison, the district court's failure to make any finding
here fatally undermines its specific rationale for the departure. In United States v. Persico, 164 F.3d 796, 806 (2d Cir. 1999), this Court
stated, parenthetically, that the "extraordinary physical impairment" required for a
downward departure "requires medical conditions that [the] Bureau of Prisons is
unable to accommodate" (citing United States v. Altman, 48 F.3d 96 (2d Cir.
1995)). Deckmejian attempts to characterize this as dicta, or as a mis-description
of Altman, but it is neither. In Persico, the relevant defendant, Fusco, had argued
that his health deteriorated while in prison, and he therefore was entitled to
withdraw his plea agreement. See Persico, 164 F.3d at 801. The district court
treated the request "as a motion for a downward departure," id., and the
government argued that Fusco's medical conditions were not extraordinary. The
district court agreed with the government's view that "the only relevant fact for
departure purposes was that the medical staff of the Bureau of Prisons was able to
provide adequate care for Fusco." Id. When this Court mentioned at the end of its
opinion, regarding Fusco, the need for finding a medical condition that the Bureau
of Prisons cannot accommodate, it was referring back to this reasoning of the
district court. This Court thereby endorsed the district court's specific reasoning
in a holding that rejected Fusco's appeal.
Similarly, in United States v. Martinez, 207 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2000), this
Court held that a defendant's diabetes did not justify a downward departure for
aberrant behavior because there was no evidence "that Martinez's diabetes is of a
type that cannot be adequately cared for within the prison system." The opinion
cites Altman in the same way that Persico did. At least two other circuits agree with this Court's reasoning as set forth in
Persico and Martinez. In United States v. Krilich, 257 F.3d 689, 693 (7th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1163 (2002), the court declared that to justify a
departure, a medical problem must be "extraordinary in the sense that prison
medical facilities cannot cope with it." United States v. Johnson, 318 F.3d 821,
826 (8th Cir. 2003), quoted from Krilich and reasoned that the phrase
"extraordinary physical impairment" requires that "a defendant's physical
condition must be assessed in the light of the situation the defendant would
encounter while imprisoned." Because Johnson's heart disease would not restrict
his ability to function more "in prison than in the outside world," id., the court
reversed a downward departure. In the face of this authority, the most that Deckmejian can cite is the
disagreement of one district court, United States v. Jimenez, 212 F. Supp.2d 214
(S.D.N.Y. 2002), which is not the law in this Circuit in light of Persico/Martinez
and not controlling here.(2) United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996), also
cited by Deckmejian, adds nothing to Deckmejian's argument because, in that pre-Persico case, the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to accommodate the defendant's
conditions is not discussed. Before Persico and Martinez, a district court did not
have to discuss this question, and the silence of Rioux on the point therefore is
Nor does United States v. Martinez-Guerrero, 987 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1993),
support Deckmejian. That case holds that a district court properly can consider the
Bureau of Prisons' ability to care for a defendant in finding that an alleged
disability is not an extraordinary impairment warranting a downward departure. See id. at 620. It does not say that a court can grant a downward departure for
health reasons despite the fact that the Bureau of Prisons can accommodate the
defendant's condition. But even if Persico and Martinez did not exist, and Deckmejian was correct
that the law does not require a finding that the Bureau of Prisons will be unable to
address his medical conditions, the district court's failure to make that finding here
undermines its specific rationale for the downward departure. The district court
did not base the departure on finding that Deckmejian has an extremely rare or
bizarre condition that makes him extraordinary. Nor did it reason that the severity
of any particular medical condition makes Deckmejian extraordinary. Instead, the
district court based its decision specifically on Dr. Berenson's assertion that
"incarceration" will worsen Deckmejian's health. A-121 (emphasis added). But
all of the evidence before the court (because Dr. Berenson admitted to knowing
nothing about Bureau of Prisons capabilities, A-82, and Deckmejian offered
nothing more)  including Dr. Foley's testimony and the Bureau of Prisons letter 
showed that the Bureau of Prisons could care for Deckmejian's conditions.
Given the district court's total reliance on the supposition that the prison
environment would adversely affect Deckmejian, the court's failure to make any
finding on the Bureau of Prisons' capabilities, its contrary assumption that an
appropriate prison could accommodate Deckmejian, A-71, and its disregard of the
uncontested evidence, destroy the rationale for the downward departure. Even
Jimenez, on which Deckmejian relies, supports this conclusion, saying that if the
defendant's argument is that his "physical frailty will render confinement far more
onerous for that defendant than it would otherwise be," 212 F. Supp.2d at 219 n.1,
which is precisely Deckmejian's argument, then "the authorities' ability to provide
adequate medical care is highly relevant, because it will tend to rebut the claim
that imprisonment will be unfairly dangerous or painful for the defendant." Id. The District Court Relied on a Legally Inappropriate Factor
Deckmejian misleadingly attempts to spin Judge Griesa's declaration that he
relied in part on his own "acquaint[ance] with prison medical facilities" in
granting the departure, A-132-133, into an assertion that the judge merely applied
his judicial "experience" (Deckmejian Br. 16-17). But Judge Griesa did not say
that he relied on his experience in "criminal sentencing" (Deckmejian Br. 17,
quoting United States v. Thorn, 317 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2003)). Instead, he claimed
to know what kinds, or degree, of medical care the Bureau of Prisons currently
could give Deckmejian based on past, unidentified, and unexplained "applications
I have had from people who are incarcerated in federal institutions," A-120, and
one visit to a New York state prison, A-95, which indisputably cannot be legally
relevant. This was an inappropriate basis for a departure.(3)
But even if a district court could rely on its own subjective and anecdotal
knowledge to draw conclusions about Bureau of Prisons medical care, the court's
reasoning still does not justify a departure. On the district court's reasoning, no
defendant with medical conditions could ever be sent to prison because of the
possibility that he or she might not receive the same level of medical care as could
be obtained from top private specialists. That is not the law. See Krilich, 257
F.3d at 694; United States v. Restrepo, 999 F.2d 640, 645-46 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 954 (1993). The District Court Never Compared Deckmejian's Circumstances to Any Other Case
Deckmejian's brief does not even try to defend the district court's refusal, A-134-135, to compare Deckmejian's situation to those of other defendants
sentenced under the Guidelines. Because the question whether a discouraged
factor, like health, "'nonetheless justifies departure because it is present in some
unusual or exceptional way, [is] . . . determined in large part by comparison with
the facts of other Guidelines cases,'" United States v. Senatamu, 212 F.3d 127,
134 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 98 (1996)), the
district court's refusal to make any comparison further undermines the basis for
the departure. The District Court Made No Finding that Deckmejian's Age Was Unusual in Any Respect
Deckmejian's brief does not even try to argue that his age is extraordinary. He suggests only that the district court was entitled to consider age and physical
condition together (Deckmejian Br. 18 n.4). But the district court stated that "69
years of age is not elderly[.]" A-71. Since the court did not even consider
Deckmejian to be elderly, USSG § 5H1.1 provides no basis for a departure. To the
extent that the court's finding of an extraordinary physical impairment was based
on age, that finding was clearly erroneous. The Extent of the Downward Departure Was an Abuse of Discretion
To have properly exercised its discretion over the degree of the departure, the
district court should have explained why its concern about Deckmejian's health
could not be satisfied by a sentence other than an extreme departure that excused
Deckmejian from prison altogether. In this case, two alternatives were readily
available: sentencing Deckmejian to prison with a recommendation that he be
designated to a Bureau of Prisons medical facility, or sentencing him to a prison
term of less than 24 months followed by home detention or supervised release.
Deckmejian attempts to defend the district court's rejection of the first
alternative by suggesting (contrary to his earlier rhetoric) that he is not so ill as to
need to be sentenced "to a hospital" (Deckmejian Br. 25). But the government
never suggested that Deckmejian had to be confined to bed. Even in a hospital
facility, "[h]e could get up and walk around, he could read, he could exercise, he
could do whatever they do in the general [prison system]." A-131. A hospital
facility simply makes hospital services readily available in case a defendant needs
them, and provides closer monitoring of medical conditions. A-130. The district
court rejected this option by setting up a straw man  saying "If he went to a
hospital and got into a hospital room in a hospital bed, can you imagine anything
worse?" A-131  and then knocking down that straw man. The court never
explained why Deckmejian could not reasonably, and safely, be sentenced to
prison and then designated, like Alfred Taubman and many other defendants, to a
facility that has a working relationship with the Mayo Clinic or other sources of
Deckmejian's brief offers no argument on the district court's failure to
explain why a less extreme departure would not have sufficed. The district courts
in United States v. Taubman and other cases chose this solution for defendants
who manifestly were more acutely ill than Deckmejian, and thereby
balanced the defendant's condition with the a critical purpose of the criminal laws
and the Sentencing Guidelines  deterring future crimes. By contrast, the district court here did not balance any competing
considerations, summarily disregarded all alternatives offered by the prosecution,
and simply excused Deckmejian from prison altogether. Given the non-critical
nature of Deckmejian's conditions, which simply require monitoring and basic
medications, this refusal to impose any period of imprisonment was an abuse of
discretion. The District Court Erred by Refusing to Impose Any Fine
Deckmejian's contention that the district court waived a fine based on the
burden it might impose on Deckmejian's dependents is frivolous. As an initial
matter, Deckmejian does not dispute that he did not even attempt to prove inability
to pay, and the court's finding that "there is money available to pay substantial
restitution [of $186,000]," A-170, plus the Presentence Report's finding of almost
$2 million in net worth, refute any inability to pay. Moreover, nothing in the Final
Judgment mentions dependents in connection with a fine. To the contrary, the
Judgment says: "Fine waived or below the guideline range because of inability to
pay." SPA-29 (emphasis added). Nor does the transcript excerpt quoted by Deckmejian (Deckmejian Br. 26)
support his position. The court does not make any finding of a potential fine
causing an undue burden on Deckmejian's family (and could not have done so,
because Deckmejian never argued the point or offered any evidence). Instead,
Judge Griesa's statement "It seems to me that the maximum consideration should
go to reimbursing the victims, and that's why I am agreeing with the
Government . . . and I'm ordering payment of all of that in the way of restitution,
but that is enough of a financial penalty," A-171 (emphasis added), confirms that
the court believed that restitution could substitute for a fine. But restitution and
fines serve fundamentally different purposes, and the district court's belief
therefore was erroneous as a matter of law, a point that Deckmejian does not
In short, the district court did not act within its discretion because, under the
circumstances, it had no discretion. The Guidelines made imposition of a fine
mandatory absent Deckmejian's proof of inability to pay, and since no evidence
was offered to support such a finding, the Judgment was clearly erroneous on that
point and the court's substitution of restitution for a fine was an error of law.
UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO CROSS-APPEAL
At Present, There Is No Blakely Issue in this Circuit
As of the date of this brief, Deckmejian has no claim based on Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because in this Circuit that decision does not
apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In United States v. Mincey, 380 F.3d
102, 106 (2d Cir. 2004), this Court held that it would not apply Blakely to the
Guidelines "[u]nless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise[.]" Until then,
the prevailing law of this Circuit does not require that the facts on which the
district court bases sentencing enhancements be determined by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accord, e.g., United States v. Slaughter, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL
2303442 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2004); United States v. Morgan, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL
2251664 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2004). In the Alternative, Deckmejian's Failures to Object Bar Any Relief
Even if Blakely did apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant
bears a difficult burden in claiming that a court's sentencing findings violated his
right to a jury trial when the defendant did not object to those findings or when the
issue is a question of law that would not have been decided by the jury in any
event. Failure to make a timely constitutional objection in the district court,
including objections based on the case that Blakely applied and construed, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), subjects the alleged error to plain
error review under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40,
45 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 634 (2d Cir. 2002);
accord United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1304 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Deckmejian failed to raise any objection based on Blakely or Apprendi. Indeed, he did not object on any factual ground to the findings about which he
now complains:
1. Loss of $450,000  The district court expressly asked Deckmejian's
counsel, Mr. Santangelo, whether he objected to the $450,000 figure, and counsel
said he had no objection:
THE COURT: Is it $450,000 even?
MS. MEIKLEJOHN: No, I don't think so, your Honor. I think it came
out to an uneven number, but it was certainly about that number.
THE COURT: Just limiting the issue to that, Mr. Santangelo, is there
an issue about that amount?
MR. SANTANGELO: No, sir.
THE COURT: That is helpful.
A-35 (emphasis added). See also A-117 (court reiterates: "You agreed to all the
illegal conduct which is charged and that the loss was foreseeable, the loss in the
amount of $450,000."). Instead, Deckmejian's position was a legal argument: that Deckmejian could
be held responsible only "for the amount of the fraud that he intends to commit." A-33. The court rejected that view of the law, saying that Deckmejian should be
responsible for the amount "[t]hat he foresees if he is convicted of a conspiracy." Id. Similarly, when the district court gave its ruling on the issue, the court said: "It is my understanding of the law that Mr. Deckmejian is responsible, in the sense
of calculating the guidelines, for an amount which he either knew about or was
foreseeable, and I find that that amount is $450,000." A-116. Accordingly, even
under a hypothetical regime that would require the jury to find the facts necessary
to support sentencing enhancements, there was no dispute here on the factual issue
of the loss, and the legal dispute would not have gone to the jury.
Because Deckmejian made no factual objection to the loss calculation of
$450,000, his claim that this enhancement "directly affected the imposition of
restitution in the amount of $186,000" (Deckmejian Br. 28) also fails. 2.	Increase for "more than minimal planning"  When the district court
mentioned this enhancement, Deckmejian made no objection whatsoever, factual
or legal. A-117. In fact, Deckmejian's written objections to the Presentence
Report agree with the two-level enhancement. A-186 ("The adjusted offense level
should be calculated as base offense level 6, +2 for more than minimal planning . .
Under the circumstances of this case, Deckmejian's failures to object mean
that he cannot satisfy at least two of the prerequisite conditions for surviving plain
error review. See Joyner, 313 F.3d at 45. First, even assuming that failure to
submit the quantity of the loss and more than minimal planning issues to the jury
was error, that error did not "affect substantial rights," id., because Deckmejian
did not dispute the $450,000 figure or the fact that his offense involved more than
minimal planning. Deckmejian's concessions mean that the jury could not have
made findings on these issues different from the court's, and the sentence would
not have been any different. Second, and for the same reason, the error did not
seriously affect the "fairness, integrity, or public perception" of Deckmejian's trial
or sentence, id. at 46, because the facts improperly found by a judge, rather than
by a jury, were "essentially uncontroverted," Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S.
461, 470 (1997). See also Joyner, 313 F.3d at 46 (no basis for relief of plain error
where pertinent facts undisputed).(4)
For the reasons set forth above, and in the United States' opening brief, the
sentence should be vacated in all respects other than the restitution order, and the
case remanded with instructions to re-sentence Deckmejian to imprisonment
within the Guideline range and a fine within the Guideline range. Deckmejian's
cross-appeal should be dismissed.
JAMES M. GRIFFIN	Deputy Assistant Attorneys General	__________________________________	JOHN J. POWERS, III
R.F.K. Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
this brief contains 4,536 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
Dated: November 3, 2004	__________________________________
I hereby certify that today, November 3, 2004, I caused two copies of the accompanying Reply Brief and Opposition to Cross-Appeal for Appellant United States of America to be served on the following by Federal Express:
Attorney for Defendant  Appellee  Cross-Appellant Birj Deckmejian __________________________________
1. Deckmejian's brief also lists gout, but this also was so trivial that Dr.
Berenson merely referred to it in passing, without any discussion, in his testimony. Nor was there any evidence in the medical records produced by Deckmejian that
he even has gout. A-228. 2. In any event, Jimenez is wrong in suggesting that Persico mis-cited
Altman, both for the reasons set forth above (because the holding in Persico was
based independently on the district court's reasoning in that case, not just on
Altman) and because Altman supports the government's position. In Altman, the
district court found that the defendant's medical conditions "simply need
monitoring," and further found that "the Bureau of Prisons would be fully able to
monitor his health." 48 F.3d at 104. This Court wrote that it "can conclude," from
these facts, "that the district court did not consider Altman to have an
extraordinary physical impairment." Id. The ability of the Bureau of Prisons to
meet a defendant's needs therefore can preclude any finding of extraordinary
impairment. And given that preclusion, a district court cannot properly find an
extraordinary physical impairment without determining what the Bureau of
Prisons can accommodate or determining that this potentially preclusive condition
Jimenez is also wrong in suggesting that this Court has said anything
inconsistent with USSG § 5H1.4. Persico, Martinez, and Altman did nothing more
than interpret the phrase "extraordinary physical impairment," the meaning of
which is not self-evident. See also McEwan v. United States, 279 F. Supp.2d 462,
465 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (disagreeing with Jimenez and concluding that "since there
was no showing . . . that the Bureau of Prisons is not fully equipped and capable of
ministering to petitioner's medical needs," petitioner's conditions "did not rise to
the level of an 'extraordinary physical impairment'"). 3. Deckmejian's citations to United States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599 (2d Cir.
1990), and United States v. Gonzalez, 945 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1991), are inapposite
on this point. The district courts in these cases did not purport to rely on their own
anecdotal knowledge of prison capabilities. In addition, this Court determined
that "[e]xtreme vulnerability of criminal defendants is a factor that was not
adequately considered by the Commission," 905 F.2d at 605, whereas health
plainly was considered by the Sentencing Commission. More generally, it is one
thing for courts to acknowledge in these cases, at a very general level, that a risk
of attack always exists in prison. It is quite different to presume, as the district
court did here, and without even knowing to what prison Deckmejian might be
assigned, that the Bureau of Prisons will not be able to provide adequate care for
specific medical conditions. 4. Given the split in the courts of appeals on whether Blakely applies to the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, any Blakely-related error could not be considered