Opinion ID: 662450
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Method of Departure

Text: 26 Even had the district court given reasons considered to be valid for departing downward from the Guidelines range, we would still vacate the defendant's sentence because of the manner in which the court arrived at Seacott's sentence. Departures, whether upward or downward, must be linked to the structure of the guidelines. United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d 526, 530 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 171, 116 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991). In departing from the Guidelines, district courts must 27 employ the rationale and methodology of the guidelines when considering cases not adequately addressed by existing guidelines. The sentencing judge is thus required to articulate the specific factors justifying the extent of his departure and to adjust the defendant's sentence by utilizing an incremental process that quantifies the impact of the factors considered by the court on the defendant's sentence. 28 Id. at 531. Significant departures--those of more than two levels--must be explained with a care commensurate with their exceptional quality. United States v. Muzika, 986 F.2d 1050, 1054 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting Thomas, 930 F.2d at 531). In this case, the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court concluded that the defendant should not serve any time in prison, and then departed downward four levels to achieve that result. Thomas makes clear such a method of departing, completely untethered to the structure, rationale or methodology of the Guidelines, is impermissible. The guidelines must be used as a reference when departing. United States v. Eiselt, 988 F.2d 677, 680 (7th Cir.1993).