Opinion ID: 201380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentencing: Downward departure for aberrant behavior

Text: 92 Castellini also charges the district court with error in sentencing him, asserting that the court ruled as a matter of law that it had no discretion to grant Castellini's request for a downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.20. We reject this claim. 93 When a district court exercises its discretion to refuse to grant a downward departure, that decision is not reviewable. United States v. Mejia, 309 F.3d 67, 70 (1st Cir.2002). Appellate review is available for refusal to depart if the district court misunderstood the scope of its authority under the guidelines and mistakenly believed that it lacked the discretion to depart. United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 318 F.3d 268, 275 (1st Cir.2003). 94 The departure was sought under the November, 2002 version of § 5K2.20, which states, in relevant part, A sentence below the applicable guideline range may be warranted in an extraordinary case if the defendant's criminal conduct constituted aberrant behavior. The commentary to the guideline defines aberrant behavior as a single criminal occurrence or single criminal transaction that (A) was committed without significant planning; (B) was of limited duration; and (C) represents a marked deviation by the defendant from an otherwise law-abiding life. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.20, cmt. n. 1 (2002). 95 At the sentencing hearing, the district court made its initial ruling on Castellini's aberrant behavior departure motion by stating: 96 I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to give a downward departure for aberrant behavior, although ... I think that the conduct involved was an extraordinary departure from what had been this man's life. 97 My concern is that ... that is not enough to permit me to find him having committed something because of aberrant behavior. 98 Castellini then argued that the court should grant the departure because it had found Castellini's behavior to be an extraordinary departure. The district court responded: 99 What I said to you is that I think that this is a departure in terms of his behavior. You know, that eight-month period, you know, is like a black hole in an otherwise reasonable life. But I don't believe that it adds up to the downward departure that you are talking about. 100 .... 101 I don't think this really is a single criminal offense. I think that it is an episode. 102 .... 103 [H]ere we had, at least arguably, two offenses ... eight months apart, both for $30,000. So it isn't one. It is not a single. 104 From the quoted passages, it is clear that the district court understood that it had the authority to depart, but decided that departure was not warranted because there was insufficient evidence to justify it. In particular, the district court denied the departure because the multiple transactions in an elaborate scheme involving a network of offshore entities over an eight-month period put it outside the purview of the single occurrence/transaction without advanced planning and of limited duration contemplated by the guideline. 13 See Rivera-Rodriguez, 318 F.3d at 275-76. That decision is not subject to review.