Opinion ID: 2995740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Connection to the Offense

Text: On appeal, the government does not seriously dispute the district court’s finding that Roach had a significantly impaired ability to control her shopping, or that either her depression or compulsive shopping disorder motivated her crime. Instead, the government argues that the district court erred in holding that an impairment that provides the motive is a sufficient “connection” to the offense under § 5K2.13. In the government’s view, for volitional impairments, the compulsive behavior must be the behavior 3 The portion of § 5K2.13 omitted here prohibits a departure under circumstances that the government agrees are not relevant to this case: if (1) the impairment was caused by the defendant’s voluntary use of drugs or other intoxicants; (2) the offense involved actual violence or a serious threat of violence; or (3) the defendant’s criminal history indicates a need to incarcerate the defendant to protect the public. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. No. 01-2618 7 constituting the offense, and not some other behavior that explains the motive. We agree with the government that § 5K2.13 requires more than a connection between the impairment and the motive because motive does not address the critical question—what was the defendant’s mental capacity when she committed the offense? We begin with the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir. 1998), which supports our view that an impairment that provides a motive is insufficient under § 5K2.13. In Miller, the defendant claimed his compulsion for viewing adult pornography caused him to trade in child pornography (the offense for which he was convicted) because his trade in child pornography facilitated his acquisition of adult pornography. The Eleventh Circuit held that the defendant’s offense of possession of child pornography was no more related to his compulsion to view adult pornography “than if he had robbed someone in order to use the proceeds to purchase adult pornography.” Id. The court explained: The impulse was related to viewing pornography, but was not related to the means of obtaining the pornography. A departure under § 5K2.13 requires that the reduced mental capacity contribute to the offense. The experts’ testimony merely showed that the impulse control disorder explained his interest in adult pornography, but it failed to establish that the disorder caused him to trade child pornography, which is the offense for which he was being sen- tenced. Id. Rejecting the district court’s finding that the defendant had a significantly impaired ability to refrain from the offense conduct, the court held that the departure for diminished capacity was improper and vacated the sentence. Id. 8 No. 01-2618 In response, Roach relies on United States v. Sadolsky, 234 F.3d 938 (6th Cir. 2000), in which the Sixth Circuit rejected the argument that, under § 5K2.13, the compulsive behavior must be the behavior constituting the offense. In Sadolsky, the defendant, a compulsive gambler, defrauded his employer over a six-month period by crediting returned merchandise to his personal credit card. The district court granted a departure for diminished capacity, based on the defendant’s claim that he committed the fraud in order to pay off his gambling debts. On appeal, the government argued that a departure under § 5K2.13 was not available because the offense at issue was fraud, and not illegal gambling. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, holding that § 5K2.13 does not require a “direct link” between the defendant’s impairment and the crime, noting that the guideline does not distinguish between impairments “that explain the behavior that constituted the crime” and impairments “that explain the behavior that motivated the crime.” 234 F.3d at 943. The court reasoned that the distinction urged by the government could lead to “arbitrary” results in cases in which the impairment was the “driving force” behind the crime but the connection with the offense was not “direct”: For example, under the Government’s theory, if someone with an eating disorder stole food, he or she would be entitled to a downward departure un- der § 5K2.13. If, however, that same person stole money to buy food, he or she would not be entitled to a downward departure. In the latter situation, the link between the crime, stealing money to buy food, and the [impairment], an eating disorder, is no longer technically direct. Nonetheless, no one can dispute that the eating disorder is the driving force behind the crime. Yet under the Government’s theory, the two individuals would be treated differently based on a nebulous distinction between a No. 01-2618 9 volitional impairment that causes the conduct that constitutes the crime and a volitional impairment that explains the motive for the ultimate crime. Id. We agree with the Sixth Circuit that the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” causes does not determine whether § 5K2.13 applies. The distinction drawn in the hypothetical posed in Sadolsky is a bit of a straw man, however. In neither example is the connection between the impairment and the offense strictly “direct”; one with an eating disorder presumably has a compulsion to eat, not to steal. In other words, even in the example of the defendant who stole food rather than money (a connection that Sadolsky labels “direct”), we still don’t know how his eating disorder was connected to the offense. For example, did he have money to buy the food but stole it anyway? Classifying the connection between the impairment and the offense as direct or indirect does not tell us anything about the strength of that connection or indeed whether the impairment has any relevance in determining the appropriate sentence. Likewise, understanding the defendant’s motive does not necessarily reveal anything about the defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the offense, which is the proper focus of the inquiry for purposes of § 5K2.13. See Frazier, 979 F.2d 1227, 1230 n.2 (“Section 5K2.13 focuses the inquiry on the defendant’s mental capacity when she committed the offense.”) (emphasis in original); United States v. Greenfield, 244 F.3d 158, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“defendant’s mental capacity must have been significantly reduced at the time he committed the offense.”) (emphasis in original). Although the definition of significantly reduced mental capacity does not expressly link volitional impairments to the offense conduct, referring instead to the ability “to control behavior that the defendant knows is wrongful,” 10 No. 01-2618 § 5K2.13 supplies that link by specifying that a departure may be considered if the “defendant committed the offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 (emphasis added); see Frazier, 979 F.2d at 1230 (holding that the district court incorrectly applied § 5K2.13 by granting a departure without a finding about the defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the offense); Miller, 146 F.3d at 1285 (“§ 5K2.13 requires that the diminished capacity be linked to the commission of the offense.”). In this case, the behavior at issue at the time of Roach’s offense is her submission of false expense reports, not her shopping. Similarly, the district court’s finding that Roach would not have committed the offense had it not been for her shopping disorder, without more, cannot support the departure. As we explained in United States v. Dyer, 216 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2000), but-for causation is a very weak sense of causation: But for [defendant’s] having been born, he wouldn’t have operated a Ponzi scheme; but it would be odd, in fact incorrect, to say that his birth (or the birth of his parents or grandparents) caused his crime. 216 F.3d at 570. Roach’s compulsive shopping may well have been a necessary cause of her offense and even, in the district court’s words, the “driving force” behind it. But like motive, this finding reveals nothing about Roach’s mental capacity when she committed the fraud, and therefore does not establish diminished capacity for purposes of § 5K2.13. This is not to say, as suggested by the government’s argument, that a shopping compulsion could only be relevant to sentencing for shoplifting, for example, or a gambling compulsion only to sentencing for illegal gambling. There may well be circumstances when such a disorder not only provides the motive for the offense, but also significantly impairs the defendant’s ability to control the No. 01-2618 11 conduct with which she is charged, such as if the defendant’s impairment had manifested itself in episodes of significantly reduced judgment or control at the time of her shopping sprees and also when she committed the fraud.4 In sum, section 5K2.13 requires an assessment of the defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the offense. It is in making this assessment that the district court’s analysis and findings fall short.