Opinion ID: 590931
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Imposition of Downward Departure

Text: 36 The government argues that the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 924(b) is used almost exclusively after a crime has been committed and that victims were never confronted in this case does not justify a departure, because unconsummated offenses were clearly contemplated by the Sentencing Commission. Section 924(b) applies to anyone who carries a firearm in interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony, and the corresponding post-November 1989 guidelines section 2K2.3 states that the defendant is to be sentenced pursuant to section 2X1.1 in respect to the offense that the defendant intended ... to be committed with the firearm; nothing in the wording of either indicates any requirement that an intended offense be consummated. 7 Furthermore, the government argues, section 2X1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for sentencing level decreases in most cases in which attempts, solicitations, and conspiracies are not consummated, see U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b), and thus the guidelines in general clearly contemplate offenses that are not consummated and never reach the point of endangering victims. 37 The government contends that the district court's other rationale for the departure, doubts concerning defendant's intent, is not valid because intent was an element of the government's case-in-chief and the jury clearly found that such intent existed. 38 The government's arguments are persuasive. According to section 2K2.3, the post-1989 section applicable to § 924(b) crimes, the base offense level is calculated by application of the offense level from § 2X1.1 with respect to the target crime. Section 2X1.1 then mandates a three-level decrease for attempts, conspiracies, and solicitations unless the defendant completed all the acts the defendant believed necessary for successful completion of the offense or the circumstances demonstrate that the [defendant or conspirators were] about to complete all such acts but for apprehension or interruption by some similar event beyond defendant's control. U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(1). Since this downward adjustment for attempts, solicitations, and conspiracies is included in scheme for sentencing those convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(b), it cannot be said that the Commission failed to take into consideration situations where the target crime would not be consummated. 39 In this case, defendant was convicted of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce with the intent to commit an offense punishable by a prison term of more than one year, but he did not actually commit the target crime. Under the guidelines, failure to complete a target offense underlying a § 924(b) conviction is the equivalent of an attempt, and thus subject to the three-point reduction in the appropriate circumstances. Since the guidelines explicitly contemplate that those convicted under § 924(b) will receive a lesser penalty when the target crime was not completed, any further departure downward was unwarranted. 40 The court's second justification for departure, the insufficiency of the psychological evaluation regarding defendant's intent and prognosis for future behavior, is also misplaced. As the government noted, intent, as an element of the section 924(b) offense, was conclusively decided by the jury. Moreover, the guidelines expressly provide that a defendant's mental and emotional state is ordinarily irrelevant to departure. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.3. 41 Since the Sentencing Commission did contemplate the offense behavior involved in this case, the downward departure was not appropriate for the reasons articulated by the district court. We therefore remand for resentencing. 42