Opinion ID: 568561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Relevance of Age in Sentencing

Text: 10 The government argues that the Sentencing Commission explicitly eliminated the relevancy of young age from sentences under the guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines address age in § 5H1.1, which provides, in relevant part: 11 Age is not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the guidelines ... Age may be a reason to go below the guidelines when the offender is elderly and infirm and where a form of punishment (e.g., home confinement) might be equally efficient as and less costly than incarceration. 12 (Emphasis in original). The government argues that, because downward departures are permitted only if they are based on mitigating factors not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), and § 5H1.1 represents adequate consideration of age, the district court erred in departing downward on account of White's youth. We agree. 13 The reasoning of the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Daiagi, 892 F.2d 31 (4th Cir.1990), in interpreting § 5H1.1 is persuasive. In Daiagi, the court, in rejecting the defendant's claim that the district court erred in failing to consider his age as a factor in sentencing, indicated that under § 3553(b) the sentencing court may consider a characteristic of the defendant relevant for the purposes of reducing a sentence below the applicable guideline range only if the Sentencing Commission did not consider that particular characteristic in its scheme. But the Commission did give careful consideration to the age of the offender as a mitigating factor in sentencing [in § 5H1.1] ... [i]t has, therefore, normally eliminated age as a mitigating sentencing factor under the language of Section 3553(b). Daiagi, 892 F.2d at 34; see also United States v. Summers, 893 F.2d 63, 69 (4th Cir.1990) (Commission has determined that age is not a relevant factor in sentencing). 14 We have consistently held that § 5H1.1, which sets forth the Commission's view on the relevance of a host of offender-specific characteristics, points to an overall sentencing scheme that is crime-specific rather than offender-specific, and expresses a return to an philosophy that the punishment should fit the crime ... United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 218 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 924, 109 S.Ct. 3257, 106 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989); see also United States v. Burch, 873 F.2d 765, 768-69 (5th Cir.1989). In Burch, we held that nothing in the guidelines justified a downward departure on the basis that the defendant is a gifted, talented individual. Id. at 768. Similarly, in United States v. Reed, 882 F.2d 147 (5th Cir.1989), we rejected the justification that there is something good in [the defendant] as a basis for downward departure. Id. at 151. We summed up our cases on offender-specific characteristics in United States v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946 (5th Cir.1990), stating that [t]he Sentencing Commission has already taken into consideration a defendant's individual characteristics as a basis for downward departure; it rejected the relevance of this factor. Id. at 955 (citations omitted). 15 In support of the district court's sentence, White contends that the court acted within its power to depart where it found mitigating circumstances not adequately taken into account by the guidelines. The analysis above plainly forecloses this argument. The guidelines have adequately taken into consideration the defendant's age in § 5H1.1, specifying extremely limited circumstances under which a sentencing court may use age in departing from the applicable range. 1 The circumstance of being young is not a permissible consideration under the guidelines.