Source: https://openjurist.org/967/f2d/20/united-states-v-e-campbell
Timestamp: 2017-10-24 06:31:27
Document Index: 179727603

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 1101', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 3742']

967 F. 2d 20 - United States v. E Campbell
967 F.2d 20
David E. CAMPBELL, also known as Anthony Jarrett Alton, also
known as nfn Pecos, Defendant-Appellant.
Following the plea, the probation department prepared a presentence report and Judge Cabranes held a sentencing hearing on September 19, 1991. The district court first recounted the sentencing calculations contained in the presentence report. The presentence report stated that under § 4A1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, defendant's past history of crime amounted to a total of nine criminal history points, which translates to a criminal history category of IV. The presentence report also calculated the offense level under § 2L1.2. Section 2L1.2(a) of the November 1, 1990 Guidelines (the Guidelines in effect at sentence and to which all references are made unless otherwise indicated) provides a base offense level of 8. The presentence report recommended enhancing this by 4 levels under § 2L1.2(b)(1) since Campbell had previously been deported after a felony conviction. The report also recommended reducing the offense level by two to reflect Campbell's acceptance of responsibility, yielding an offense level of 10. See § 3E1.1. For a defendant with a criminal history category of IV and an offense level of 10, the Guidelines provide a sentencing range of 15-21 months. Finally, the presentence report identified two possible grounds for departure from that range. First, the report indicated that an increase in Campbell's criminal history score might be warranted, since the guidelines artificially treated the three May 24, 1985 convictions as a single incident. Second, the report indicated that under § 2L1.2 application note three, an upward departure might be warranted since Campbell's deportation followed his conviction for an aggravated felony.
Section 2L1.2 application note three instructs that "[i]n the case of a defendant previously deported after sustaining a conviction for an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a), or for any other violent felony, an upward departure may be warranted." Campbell concedes that his May 1985 convictions for attempted murder and sale of controlled substances meet the statutory definition. The only dispute is whether, once the district court had considered these prior convictions in making the § 4A1.3 departure, it could consider them again in making the § 2L1.2 departure.
The "double counting" objection in this case is unusual in that it involves a claim that the Guidelines forbid basing two separate upward departures on the same factor. Most of our double counting cases have involved a situation where the district court considers a factor both in setting the initial Guidelines range and in choosing to depart from that range. In that case, the law is clear. The Guidelines limit upward departures to where the court "finds that there exists an aggravating ... circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). Thus, where the particular factor has already been considered in setting the base level, counting the factor again in making a departure violates § 3553(b) unless the factor is present in a degree which the Commission did not consider. See e.g., United States v. Coe, 891 F.2d 405, 410 (2d Cir.1989) (error to depart upward because of fact of multiple robberies since multi-count analysis in guidelines already accounted for that factor); United States v. Palta, 880 F.2d 636, 640 (2d Cir.1989) (improper to depart upward for concealment of identity since Guidelines consider obstruction of justice); United States v. Colon, 905 F.2d 580, 585-86 (2d Cir.1990) (error to depart upward for role in the offense since Guidelines address the issue).
It is far less clear whether the Guidelines forbid making two separate upward departures for the same act. In United States v. Cervantes, 878 F.2d 50 (2d Cir.1989), we indicated in dicta that the Guidelines do not always permit a district court to increase a defendant's criminal history category both for violating a condition of bail and for committing a crime while other charges were pending. Id. at 55 n. 3. We reasoned that where the former (the bail violation) was premised on the latter (the commission of a crime while free on bail), only a single adjustment in the criminal history category was authorized. Id. In essence, footnote three in Cervantes stands for the common sense proposition that the mere fact that a bad act can be described in two different ways does not justify making two separate upward adjustments.
The Guidelines similarly suggest that the severity of the crime of reentry depends on the reasons for the initial deportation. Application note three of Section 2L1.2 is part of Chapter 2 of the Guidelines, which defines offense conduct, rather than Chapter 4, which designates criminal history categories. The November 1, 1991 edition of the Guidelines (which had not yet been promulgated when Campbell was sentenced) provides for a 16 level enhancement of the offense level when an aggravated felony triggered the prior deportation. § 2L1.2(b)(2). That both the former and most recent Guidelines treat the prior aggravated felony conviction as part of the offense level powerfully suggests that the prior conviction is a critical part of what makes the current reentry wrongful.
Campbell also contends that even if the district court did not err in making two upward departures, the vertical departure was procedurally flawed. In particular, Campbell contends that under our decision in United States v. Coe, 891 F.2d 405 (2d Cir.1989), when a district court makes an upward departure of more than one level, the district court must articulate on the record reasons for rejecting each intermediate level. Since the district court failed to consider and reject each intervening level, Campbell contends that the case must be remanded for resentencing. We disagree.
The difference is important because Coe mandates that district courts follow the step by step procedure for horizontal departures, see Coe, 891 F.2d at 413. United States v. Kim, 896 F.2d 678 (2d Cir.1990), governs the procedures for vertical departures.
Since Kim, several of our cases contain language that might be taken to suggest that the step by step procedure recommended in Kim is mandatory for every 5K2.0 upward departure. Thus, in United States v. Schular, 907 F.2d 294, 299 (2d Cir.1990) we relied on Kim for the proposition that "[t]he next higher offense levels must be considered in sequence when departing from the Sentencing Guidelines range." Similarly, in United States v. Uccio, 917 F.2d 80, 86-87 (2d Cir.1990), we stated that "[i]n making a Ch. 5, Part K departure, the sentencing court must move vertically down the sentencing table until it reaches the appropriate higher offense level." Careful examination of Schular and Uccio, however, reveals that neither case squarely stands for the proposition that the next higher offense levels must be considered in sequence in every case.
In Schular, after summarizing the Kim method, we stated that "[t]his gradual approach is especially appropriate in the case at bar." 907 F.2d at 299. Thus, Schular implies that in some cases, the Kim approach will not be appropriate. In Uccio, we remanded for resentencing because the district court had not specified whether the upward departure had been made under § 5K2.0 or § 4A1.3. Thus, the discussion in Uccio of Kim was dicta.
More recent cases indicate that the Kim procedure is not always necessary. In United States v. Pergola, 930 F.2d 216 (2d Cir.1991) we affirmed an upward departure based on the psychological harm suffered by the victim, despite the fact that the district judge had not expressly considered and rejected each intermediate offense level. We explained that "the requirement of a specific step-by-step calculation and comparison is not particularly apt where, as here, (a) harm to the victim is at issue, and (b) the type of harm at issue is psychological rather than physical, making observation difficult and quantification nearly impossible." Id. at 220.
While Pergola applies to cases where the district court departs for factors other than the defendant's conduct, in United States v. Hernandez, 941 F.2d 133 (2d Cir.1991) we made clear that the district courts need not follow the Kim procedure even where the departure is based on the conduct of the defendant. In Hernandez, the defendant pled guilty to one count of weapons possession. At sentencing, the district court departed upward on the ground that Hernandez possessed the weapons in connection with " 'white powder' drug trafficking." Id. at 141. The court based the extent of the upward departure on the sentence for an analogous crime--drug possession in connection with weapons. The district court did not expressly consider and reject each intermediate offense level before settling on the extent of the departure. Nonetheless, we stated that the district court's "careful explanation satisfies [Kim's] requirements for upward departures." Id. at 140. Thus, Hernandez makes clear that for § 5K2.0 departures, the district courts need not make talismanic reference to the Kim procedures, so long as there is careful explanation in the record of the reasons for the extent of the departure.
We reaffirmed this view of Kim in United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130, 139-40 (2d Cir.1992). In Rodriguez, the district court increased Rodriguez' sentence for conducting a continuing criminal enterprise from level 36 to level 42. The court determined the extent of the departure by referring to a subsequent Guidelines amendment, not directly applicable to Rodriguez, that set level 42 as the offense level for selling the volume of drugs that Rodriguez' criminal enterprise distributed. In approving the departure despite the district judge's failure to explicitly follow the Kim procedures, we emphasized that "Kim and its progeny were not ... intended to be a straightjacket." Id. at 139-40. We concluded that "mechanical level-by-level review of the extent of the upward departure was unnecessary" where the district judge gave appropriate reasons for the extent of the chosen departure. Id. at 140. We see no reason why a different rule should apply to vertical departures made pursuant to § 2L1.2 application note three.
This flexible approach is consistent with our view that "a case-by-case approach should be taken with respect to departures" United States v. Ahuja, 936 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1991) and that "sentencing judges are afforded considerable latitude in making upward departures." United States v. Stephenson, 921 F.2d 438 (2d Cir.1990). See also United States v. Aymelek, 926 F.2d 64, 70 (1st Cir.1991) ("where a departure is warranted, the emphasis should be on ascertaining a fair and reasonable sentence, not on subscribing slavishly to a particular formula.")
By focusing directly on the reasonableness of the departure as manifested in the district court's articulation of its rationale, rather than on whether or not Kim is expressly followed, this approach is also in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). In Williams, the Court stated that once the reviewing court has determined that the district court correctly decided to depart upward, "the court of appeals may affirm the sentence as long as it is also satisfied that the departure is reasonable under § 3742(f)(1)." Id. 112 S.Ct. at 1121. In determining whether the extent of the departure is reasonable, the court should look "to the amount and extent of the departure in light of the grounds for departing" and "examine the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence under the Guidelines, as well as the district court's stated reasons for the imposition of the particular sentence." Id. The key question is whether the "reasons given by the district court ... are sufficient to justify the magnitude of the departure." Id.