Opinion ID: 661525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Departures from the Sentencing Range

Text: 60 The district court gave two alternative reasons for an upward departure: (1) a pecuniary interest, or (2) more than minimal planning. [W]hile departure decisions are properly reviewed under [U.S.C.] Sec. 3742(f)(2), they are also properly reviewed under [U.S.C.] Sec. 3742(f)(1) when they are the result of an incorrect application of the guidelines ... that govern departure decisions. Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (emphasis in original). 61 In determining whether to remand a sentencing decision we must apply a two-part test: (1) was the sentence imposed either in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines? If so, a remand is required under [U.S.C.] Sec. 3742(f)(1). Id. If not, we must ask (2) is the resulting sentence an unreasonably high or low departure from the relevant guideline range? If so, a remand is required under [U.S.C.] Sec. 3742(f)(2). Id., see also United States v. Henderson, 993 F.2d 187, 188 (9th Cir.1993). 62 The [Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 as amended] provides that a district court may depart from the sentencing range set by the Guidelines only when it finds that 'there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines.'  Williams, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1118 (quoting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b)); see also, U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.0 (1989); United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745, 746 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). One justification the district court gave for departing was that Fontenot had a profit motive. 63 Fontenot argues that the sentencing guidelines take a profit motive into consideration in a murder for hire. This is true as applied to the person hired to commit the murder. Fontenot was not hired to kill his wife. Rather, he hired Reagan to kill Catherine. In a typical murder for hire, Reagan, the hit man, would have the profit motive, which the sentencing guidelines adequately take into account. Here, Fontenot, the hirer, also had a profit motive because he would receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy he had taken out on Catherine. Fontenot's profit motive was not adequately taken into consideration by the sentencing guidelines. Thus, his profit motive is a proper ground for this upward departure. 64 The district court alternatively based the departure from the sentencing guideline range on more than minimal planning. Fontenot arranged for life insurance on Catherine. He used the facilities of interstate commerce with intent that a murder for hire be committed, in his first telephone conversation with Reagan. During that conversation, Fontenot and Reagan discussed the price of the service, how much Reagan would need up front, and that Catherine's murder should look like an accident. After that, Fontenot traveled to California, met with Reagan in person, provided Reagan with detailed information on the intended victim, and made specific requests on how the killing should occur and how the body should appear. All of this took more than minimal planning. 65 Because we hold that the departure was not imposed in violation of the law or as a result of a misapplication of the sentencing guidelines, we must next decide whether the departure was reasonable under U.S.C. Sec. 3742(f)(2). Williams, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1120. In making this decision, we 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. --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1121. See also Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d at 747, 751. We hold that the amount and extent of this departure was reasonable based either on Fontenot's profit motive or on his more than minimal planning.