Opinion ID: 703878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: San Lwin

Text: 33 As to San Lwin, the district court found that several factors set out in Application Note 5 justified an upward departure. The court found that [w]hen [Lwin] signed on board ... he knew he was on board a smuggling boat. Tr. of Morning Sentencing, July 13, 1994 at 148. The court found further that he knew that more than 100 people were going to be involved in this. He knew the conditions were dangerous and inhuman [sic], and he knew there was the potential for the loss of life. Id. at 148-49. The court also found that he played a direct part in the action that ultimately led to the death and injuries of so many people. Id. at 151. After hearing Lwin's testimony, Judge Raggi rejected Lwin's argument that he was coerced. The judge found him incredible in almost every aspect of his testimony, and was not persuaded that his actions were motivated by fear. Id. at 150. Thus, the court determined that a severe upward departure was warranted. Id. at 151. 34 Lwin argues that no evidence presented at the sentencing demonstrated that he had any role in creating the dangerous and inhumane conditions on the boat, that he in any manner contributed to them, or that he was responsible for them. We find, to the contrary, that the record of the sentencing hearing provides ample support for the district court's findings that Lwin knew of the smuggling scheme before he agreed to participate, that he knew of the plans for taking on far more than 100 aliens, and that he was aware of the dangerous and inhumane conditions on board the boat. He nonetheless agreed to participate in the scheme, he furthered the plan by acting in a supervisory position, and he participated in an action--the grounding of the boat--that led to the deaths of ten people. The record shows that even before he was made captain of the boat, as first officer he held a position of some responsibility. After he became captain, the record shows that he participated in the decisions that led to the grounding of the boat. Thus, the district court was justified in finding Lwin responsible for the number of passengers on board, the conditions on the boat and for the events that led to the deaths of the passengers. 35 Lwin also argues that the magnitude of the upward departure was an abuse of the district court's discretion. Lwin argues that the court improperly based its departure on Lwin's failure to act heroically after the grounding of the ship. Brief for Defendant-Appellant Lwin, at 28. The court, in imposing sentence, did note that it was struck throughout [Lwin's] testimony, by his total lack of concern for the passengers on board this boat.... After the grounding, his singular thought was for himself.... He was one of the first people to jump off this boat. Tr. of Morning Sentencing, July 13, 1994, at 150-51. The court also made clear, however, that its departure was based on the number of aliens involved, the conditions on the boat, and the deaths of ten passengers for which Lwin was in part responsible--factors, as set out in Note 5, which were not taken into account by the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 151. For all the reasons stated by Judge Raggi, we find that the upward departure from a 21-to-27 month range to 54 months was reasonable and fully justified by the circumstances of this case.