Source: http://legaliq.com/Case/United_States_V_Henry_A_Bostic
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 02:35:41
Document Index: 659298501

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 3742', '§ 5', '§ 401', '§ 3742', '§ 3742']

United States v. Henry A. Bostic (371 F.3d 865)
Case Name: United States v. Henry A. Bostic
Citations: 371 F.3d 865
Docket #: 02-6437
371 F.3d 865
Henry A. BOSTIC, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-6437.
Decided and Filed: June 17, 2004.
The government, with the approval of the Solicitor General, appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court on Henry Alvin Bostic ("Bostic"). Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Bostic pleaded guilty to firearms charges. At Bostic's sentencing hearing, the district court granted a downward departure under United States Sentencing Guideline ("U.S.S.G.") § 5H1 "[d]ue to the defendant's age, infirmity and poor health." Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 28. On appeal, the government argues that the district court erred in granting this downward departure because (1) the district court failed to sentence Bostic in accordance with the framework of the sentencing guidelines; (2) the district court failed to determine that Bostic's age and infirmities made his case exceptional and would make incarceration inefficient and costly; and (3) the district court erred in granting a departure based upon the present record.
On June 5, 2002, a grand jury returned a nine-count indictment charging Bostic with various firearms offenses. Count One of the indictment charges Bostic with willfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, including but not limited to the guns identified in the remaining counts of the indictment, "from on or about June 9, 2000, up to and including June 5, 2002," in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A) and 924(a)(1)(D). J.A. at 5 (indictment). Count Two of the indictment charges Bostic with knowingly selling and disposing "of firearms, that is, a Lorcin .22 caliber pistol and a North American Arms mini-revolver," to a person while knowing that person was a convicted felon, "on or about October 3, 2000," in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(1) and 924(a)(2). J.A. at 5 (indictment). Counts Three through Nine charge Bostic "with sales of specific firearms on specific dates to persons whom [Bostic] knew, or should have known, were convicted felons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(1) and 924(a)(2)." Appellant's Br. at 2.
At this time [Bostic] remain[s] in stable condition. He, however, has serious underlying medical problems.
In Bostic's PSR, prepared on October 10, 2002, the probation officer assigned Bostic a base offense level of fourteen in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6). The probation officer recommended a six-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) because Bostic sold between twenty-five and ninety-nine firearms, in that Bostic sold twenty-four firearms to informants and undercover ATF agents, possessed six firearms at the time of his arrest, and was observed selling additional firearms over the course of the investigation. The probation officer recommended an additional two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) because at least one of the firearms Bostic sold had an obliterated serial number. The probation officer recommended a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Bostic had no criminal history points, and thus was assigned a criminal history category of I. Accordingly, the probation officer recommended a total offense level of nineteen, and calculated Bostic's guideline range to be thirty to thirty-seven months of imprisonment, with a fine between $6,000 and $60,000, and a special assessment of $200. Bostic's guideline range, however, was located in "Zone D"; therefore, Bostic was not eligible for probation under U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1(a).
Following the government's introduction of evidence regarding the offense conduct, Bostic did not introduce any additional evidence supporting his motion for a downward departure. When the district judge asked what Bostic's medical problems were, Bostic's counsel stated, "[Bostic] has emphysema and heart trouble, Your Honor." J.A. at 36 (Sentencing Hr'g Tr. at 36).
A party "must `object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection.'" United States v. LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir.1975)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849, 101 S.Ct. 137, 66 L.Ed.2d 60 (1980); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 51(b). A specific objection provides the district court with an opportunity to address the error in the first instance and allows this court to engage in more meaningful review. The government's statements to the district court did not constitute a sufficiently articulated objection.
We hold that the government's failure to object should not be excused in this case, and therefore, that we should review the district court's judgment for plain error. After reviewing the applicable procedural rules and circuit precedent, we conclude that the district court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with our existing precedent. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 51(b)3 requires a party to object in order to preserve an issue for review, but excuses the failure to object if that party had no opportunity to do so. Rule 32(i)4 requires the court to allow the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and counsel for the government each an opportunity to speak. The cases that the government relies upon to support its argument that its failure to object should be excused differ from the case at bar in an important respect — in both of the cases cited by the government, the aggrieved party did not have notice of the issue prior to district court's pronouncement of the sentence, and the district court did not give the aggrieved party an opportunity to object after it pronounced the sentence. United States v. Breeding, 109 F.3d 308, 310 (6th Cir.1997); United States v. Hickey, 917 F.2d 901, 906 (6th Cir.1990).5 In this case, however, Bostic filed a motion for a downward departure prior to the sentencing hearing, and the government had an opportunity to file opposition papers and to object when the government's counsel spoke at the sentencing hearing, yet the government failed to do either.
Although we disagree with the concurrence's reading of our existing precedent and with its narrow understanding of "opportunity to object," we think that the rule our colleague urges is a wise one. Therefore, we exercise our supervisory powers over the district courts and announce a new procedural rule, requiring district courts, after pronouncing the defendant's sentence but before adjourning the sentencing hearing, to ask the parties whether they have any objections to the sentence just pronounced that have not previously been raised.6 If the district court fails to provide the parties with this opportunity, they will not have forfeited their objections and thus will not be required to demonstrate plain error on appeal. If a party does not clearly articulate any objection and the grounds upon which the objection is based, when given this final opportunity speak, then that party will have forfeited its opportunity to make any objections not previously raised and thus will face plain error review on appeal. Providing a final opportunity for objections after the pronouncement of sentence, "will serve the dual purpose[s] of permitting the district court to correct on the spot any error it may have made and of guiding appellate review." United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (1993). Requiring clear articulation of any objection and the grounds therefor, "will aid the district court in correcting any error, tell the appellate court precisely which objections have been preserved and which have been [forfeited], and enable the appellate court to apply the proper standard of review to those preserved." Id. at 1102-03. This rule applies only prospectively, and because we are remanding to the district court, this rule will apply at Bostic's re-sentencing. United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 945 (6th Cir.1998).
Because existing precedent did not excuse the government's failure to object, and because we conclude that Bostic's sentence must be vacated regardless of the scope of our review, we will review the downward departure for plain error.7 See United States v. Barajas-Nunez, 91 F.3d 826, 830 (6th Cir.1996). "A `plain error' is an error that is clear or obvious, and if it affects substantial rights, it may be noticed by an appellate court." Id.
The first two factors that an appellant must prove in order to obtain reversal under plain error review are (1) that the district court erred and (2) that the error was plain. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also United States v. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1030, 119 S.Ct. 1278, 143 L.Ed.2d 371 (1999).
At sentencing, the district court stated that it was granting a downward departure, "[b]ecause of [Bostic's] age and because of [Bostic's] infirmity and because of [Bostic's] health," but did not specify the number of levels it was departing. J.A. at 37 (Sentencing H'rg Tr. at 7). The calculations in the PSR, which the district court adopted, set Bostic's total offense level at nineteen. To sentence Bostic as it did, to probation without home confinement, the district court had to reduce Bostic's offense level to eight, which is an eleven-level departure. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 Pt. A; U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1(a).
18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). To sentence a defendant outside of the guideline range, the district court must determine that the case falls outside of the heartland of cases in the guideline range. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 98, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996). The defendant has the burden of proving that a downward departure is warranted. United States v. Rutana, 932 F.2d 1155, 1159 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 907, 112 S.Ct. 300, 116 L.Ed.2d 243 (1991). In order to determine that a case falls outside of the heartland, the district court must conduct "a refined assessment of the many facts bearing on the outcome, informed by [the district court's] vantage point and day-to-day experience in criminal sentencing." Koon, 518 U.S. at 98, 116 S.Ct. 2035. Furthermore, the district court must determine the size of the departure by tying it to the structure of the sentencing guidelines, and the size of the departure must be reasonable given the factors sentencing courts are required to consider and the facts of the case. United States v. Crouse, 145 F.3d 786, 792 (6th Cir.1998); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(3)(C).
In United States v. Johnson, 71 F.3d 539, 544-45 (6th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1113, 116 S.Ct. 1338, 134 L.Ed.2d 488 (1996), we vacated the defendant's sentence upon another ground, but also directed the district court on remand to make more specific findings regarding whether the defendant's medical condition was extraordinary and whether the BOP could accommodate the defendant. The sixty-five-year-old defendant in Johnson provided evidence of his medical condition in the form of a letter from his attending physician, who diagnosed the defendant "with diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, ulcers, potassium losing enteropathy, and reactive depression," and a letter from his psychiatrist, who diagnosed the defendant "with major depressive disorder." Id. Additionally, both doctors were prescribing medication for the defendant and believed that incarceration would detrimentally affect the defendant's health. We noted "that an aged defendant with a multitude of health problems may qualify for a downward departure under § 5H1.4[,but] such downward departures are rare." Id. at 545. We also stated that on remand more evidence than the two doctors' letters might be necessary to enable the district court make the required findings. Id.
Similarly, in United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 434-35 (6th Cir.2000), we vacated the defendant's sentence upon another ground, but also directed the district court on remand to make more specific findings regarding whether the defendant's medical condition was extraordinary and whether the BOP could accommodate the defendant. The seventy-two-year-old defendant in Tocco had "arteriosclerotic disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, renal insufficiency, labrynthitis, and diverticulosis," and "required `periodic monitoring.'" Id. at 434. We criticized the district court for relying solely upon the defendant's PSR when it granted a four-level departure due to the defendant's age and health. Id. Additionally, in Tocco, we noted that the defendant's "age alone should not be considered as a basis for a substantial downward departure," because the evidence showed that the defendant remained active in the community. Id.
By way of contrast, in United States v. Sabino, 274 F.3d 1053, 1078-79 (6th Cir.2001), we upheld a three-level downward departure that was based upon several factors, including age. The seventy-two-year-old defendant in Sabino had "physical deficiencies ..., particularly ailments with his eyes and ears." Id. at 1079. In upholding the downward departure, we reasoned that the departure was small and based upon several factors, including "the death of [the defendant's] wife a few months before sentencing; [the defendant's] age (72) at the time of sentencing; his physical deficiencies...; the absence of any physical threat to others; the absence of a risk of flight; and the conclusion that [the defendant] played a minor role in the conspiracy." Id.
The final factors that an appellant must prove in order to obtain reversal under plain error review are (3) that the error affected substantial rights and (4) that "the error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Olano, 507 U.S. at 734-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quotation omitted); see also Koeberlein, 161 F.3d at 949. A sentencing error affects substantial rights when "it affects the outcome of the case by substantially reducing the defendant's sentence." Barajas-Nunez, 91 F.3d at 833. And a sentencing error that leads to a substantial departure affects the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings because "[p]ermitting sentencing courts to disregard governing law would diminish the integrity and public reputation of the judicial system [and] also would diminish the fairness of the criminal sentencing system by imposing a significantly smaller sentence on" one defendant than it would have upon a different defendant who committed the same crime under similar circumstances. Id. Moreover, such disparities "would fly in the face of one of the primary purposes of the sentencing guidelines — the elimination of disparities in sentencing." Id.
Rule 32(i)(1) provides:
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.
Rule 32(i)(4)(A) provides:
Unlike the concurrence, we view more narrowly the rule announced inUnited States v. Hickey, 917 F.2d 901, 906 (6th Cir.1990), in that it requires the district court to provide an opportunity for the parties to object after pronouncing the defendant's sentence only when the parties had no prior notice of the action the district court eventually took. In Hickey, the government had specifically argued "that its failure to [make an objection] is excused ... because it had no reason to suspect that a fine would not be imposed until it was too late, i.e., the sentence had already been imposed." Id. Similarly, in Breeding, the defendant had specifically argued, "The very first time there was mention of the potential for an additional fine... occurred when the court imposed judgment. It was clear at that time that the time for argument was over." United States v. Breeding, 109 F.3d 308, 310 (6th Cir.1997).
Due to the difficulty of parsing a transcript to determine whether during a sentencing hearing — which is typically somewhat less formal than a trial — a party had a meaningful opportunity to object, we agree with the concurrence that the best approach is for district courts, after pronouncing the defendant's sentence but before adjourning the sentencing hearing, to elicit any objections not previously raised by the parties. "We can use our supervisory powers to create a procedural rule so long as the rule does not conflict with the Constitution or a statute."United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 944 (6th Cir.1998). In United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102-03 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir.1993), the Eleventh Circuit exercised its supervisory powers to adopt a rule similar to the one endorsed by the concurrence in the case at bar.
In a Rule 28(j) letter, dated December 1, 2003, the government contends that the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 ("PROTECT Act"), Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003) ("PROTECT Act") § 401(d)(1)(C), requires this court to review de novo a district court's decision to grant a downward departure. The government did not argue that the PROTECT Act requires de novo review in a case where the government failed to object below, and although we doubt that it does, we do not decide that issue in this appeal because we conclude that the district court committed plain error
As inJohnson and Tocco, we think it is appropriate for the district court to "obtain independent and competent medical evidence to determine the extent of [defendant's] infirmities and the prison system's ability or inability to accommodate him." United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 435 (6th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Johnson, 71 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir.1995)).
Our precedent is clear, that in cases such as this, "where the district court fails to provide an opportunity for objections after the pronouncement of a sentence, waiver should not be found." United States v. Breeding, 109 F.3d 308, 310 (6th Cir.1997). Moreover, where there is an explicit grant of authority for challenging a sentence and where the government does not have an opportunity to object following the pronouncement of sentence, there is no waiver. United States v. Hickey, 917 F.2d 901, 906 (6th Cir.1990). In the case before us, the explicit grant of authority for challenging the defendant's sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(3), which states the following:
18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(3). There is no dispute that the sentence imposed is below "the minimum established in the guideline range." Id. Because there is an explicit grant of authority for challenging the defendant's sentence and because the prosecutor was not given a reasonable opportunity to object to the downward departure, the government did not waive its right to appeal this issue. The prosecutor made it very clear that he wished an opportunity to address the court in opposition to defense counsel's request for leniency. He was not obligated to reassert his request by repeating himself, by interrupting the trial judge in the midst of pronouncing sentence, or by attempting to call the judge back to the bench as he was leaving. There is no rule of law or practice, of which I am aware, that requires the prosecutor to repeat his request to be heard, or face, as in this case, an appellate adjudication that the issue is waived.
This case appears to be nothing more than an uncharacteristic and inadvertent mistake by a highly respected district judge, who has conducted more rule-conforming sentencing proceedings in an exemplary fashion than he or we can count. Very likely, he simply forgot to do what he regularly does: ask both counsel if they had anything further to say. In my view, the prosecutor adequately put the district court on notice that the government objected to the motion for a downward departure. Accordingly, the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion. United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 432 (6th Cir.2000). I conclude that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence without first giving the prosecutor an opportunity to address the court, after being earlier advised by the prosecutor that he "would just like to address the Court on the government's view on sentencing...."
United States v. Ruth Alston Breeding
United States of America v. Joe Sabino (99-3745) Daniel K. Stewart (99-3785) Donna G. Stewart (99-3786)
United States of America v. Jack William Tocco
United States v. Edward B. Crouse
United States v. Keithley Johnson
United States v. Charles C. Waters
Cases Citing This Case (50 of 341)
United States v. Sekou Fofana
United States v. Charles Patton
United States v. Brian Bass
United States v. Andre Van
United States v. Jesus Valles-Renteria
United States v. Ronald Mabee
United States v. Kenneth Cochrane
United States v. Lee Berry
United States v. Carlos Young
United States v. Sythong Thannavong
United States v. Alvin Fenderson
United States v. Scadin
United States v. Jeron Gaskin
United States v. Steven Fout
United States v. Michael Maddox
United States v. Clennie Manning
United States v. Acamie Salter
United States v. Michelle Smith
United States v. Kipp James
United States v. Carlos Torres-Palos
Did you want to cite the UNITED STATES V. HENRY A. BOSTIC court case? Copy and paste the below to your blog or Web page or create a forum post.