Opinion ID: 721091
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Downward departure of one level for Jo Ann Brewer

Text: 68 On cross-appeal, the government contends the district court improperly departed downward from the adjusted guideline level in sentencing Jo Ann Brewer. 69 Our review of guideline departures follows the three-part procedure established in United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745, 746-47 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). We review: (1) whether the trial court had the legal authority to depart, de novo; (2) the factual findings in support of the basis for departure, for clear error; and (3) the reasonableness of the extent of departure in light of the structure, standards, and policies of the guidelines. Id. A trial court must explain the reasoning for departure in language sufficiently specific to allow meaningful review. Id. at 751. 70 Here, the district court did not use the minor-participant mechanism as the legal basis for departure, but rather U.S.S.G. § 5K2, which permits discretionary departure if a court finds unusual mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission. Jo Ann Brewer suggests an additional basis in § 2F1.1 Application Note 10(f), which allows downward departure in extraordinary cases where the calculation of loss overstates the seriousness of the offense. The loopholes of §§ 2F1.1 and 5K2 are purposely open-ended, factually. 71 Here, the district court gave a lengthy explanation of its reasons for departing downward, i.e., the unique role Jo Ann Brewer had in the fraud generated by her husband. None of the cases the government cites squarely negates the applicability of §§ 2F1.1 and 5K2 to these facts. 9 By basing the departure on the following role Jo Ann Brewer played, the district court may have bent the guidelines, but did not clearly break them. The district court's factual findings that Jo Ann Brewer played a less culpable, following role are not clearly erroneous. Finally, a one-level departure is minimal and therefore reasonable. 72 We affirm the downward departure.