Opinion ID: 1316754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Resentencing in December 2005

Text: This current appeal is from the resentencing in December 2005. As discussed later, the district court judge added very little to the record in this resentencing and basically made it clear he was simply reimposing the same sentence on remand. We outline what the brief seventeen-page resentencing transcript shows. This brief transcript shows that the district court actually began Livesay's resentencing hearing with preliminary remarks, in which the district court commented that [l]urking not too far in the background of this sentencing is the jury's verdict in the Richard Scrushy case. Richard Scrushy was the Chief Executive Officer of HealthSouth at all times pertinent, and he was acquitted by the jury in his trial. The district court, speaking not as one of twelve Article III judges of the court, but as the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Alabama, observed that he knew of no allegations that the jury in the Scrushy case had been in any way compromised. The district court publicly thanked the Scrushy jury for its tremendous public service, and observed that before attacking the jury's verdict, it is important to reflect on the fact that we did not sit here in the courtroom and hear and consider all of the evidence, as the jurors did. The district court then noted that, in Livesay's case, this Court had directed the district court to outline in some detail the factors on which it relied in giving the § 5K1.1 departure and its reasons for the extent of the departure. The government renewed its § 5K1.1 motion, but in light of Livesay's continued substantial assistance since the first sentencing, recommended 20 months' imprisonment [6] (i.e., less than its recommendation for 60 months' imprisonment at the first sentencing). [7] The district court again granted the government's § 5K1.1 motion and said it was basically reimposing the original sentence. The district court did make specific § 5K1.1 findings that the significance and truthfulness of Livesay's information and testimony, as well as the nature and extent of his assistance, was extraordinarily high and warranted an extraordinary departure. The district court further found that Livesay's assistance was very timely and warranted extraordinary consideration. The district court acknowledged that Livesay's actions were not sufficient to meet the legal standards for withdrawing from a conspiracy, but nevertheless stated that it was impressed with the fact that from just an ordinary, common sense understanding, [Livesay] did substantially withdraw from the conspiracy. The district court then repeated the same earlier § 5K1.1 downward departure and departed downward 18 levels to an offense level of 10, which once again left Livesay with an advisory Guidelines range of 6 to 12 months' imprisonment. At that point, the government asked to be heard before the district court imposed its final sentence. While the government acknowledged that Livesay was well deserving of a downward departure, the government stressed that Livesay also was a key player, a significant cog, in the operation of this fraud at HealthSouth for a number of years. The government emphasized that although Livesay did come forward early, he nevertheless didn't come forward until the fraud itself was revealed. The government further observed that Livesay's handiwork as one of the mechanics of the fraud was reflected in the fraudulent forms that HealthSouth filed with the SEC. The government stressed the need for deterrence in sentencing Livesay, and stated its belief that some prison sentence of significance was necessary in light of the sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The government renewed its request for a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment under the adjusted Guidelines range found by the district court. The district court then summarily stated, If I'm wrong on the extent of the departure which I have just made, I believe that the sentence I'm about to impose is the most appropriate sentence in this case in consideration of the Booker case. [8] In other words, even without the § 5K1.1 departure, the district court would have made the same variance under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), from the advisory Guidelines range of 78 to 97 months' imprisonment. The district court proceeded to sentence Livesay to 60 months' probation (the first 6 months to be served on home detention, which Livesay already had done). The district court reimposed the $10,000 fine and forfeiture of $750,000, both of which Livesay had already paid. With regard to the sentencing factors in § 3553(a), the district court stated that it viewed the sentence as appropriate based on the nature and circumstances of Livesay's crimes; Livesay's history and personal characteristics; the need for this sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crimes to which Livesay pled guilty; the need to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment; and to afford adequate deterrence. The district court further stated that it considered the sentence justified in order to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, and listed the sentences imposed on twelve other HealthSouth co-conspirators as follows: In the cases arising out of this conduct, Weston Smith received 27 months [imprisonment]; William Owens, 27 months [imprisonment]; Emery Harris, five months [imprisonment]; Angela Ayers, 48 months of probation; Cathy Edwards, 48 months of probation; Rebecca Morgan, 48 months of probation; Virginia Valentine, 48 months of probation; Michael Martin, seven days [imprisonment]; Aaron Beam, three months [imprisonment]; Richard Botts, 60 months of probation; Will Hicks, 24 months of probation; and Catherine Fowler, 24 months of probation. Livesay's counsel then pointed out that William Owens's sentence was actually 60 months' imprisonment, not 27 months. The district court said, I stand corrected. The district court did not discuss the nature of the conduct of these twelve other co-conspirators or explain how their conduct was similar to Livesay's. This appeal followed.