Opinion ID: 665876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grant of Departure Under U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.0

Text: 45 The government argues that the district court erred in granting both defendants a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.0 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b). The probation officer calculated defendants' base offense level by applying U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.2, the guidelines provision applicable to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1957, the most serious of defendants' counts of conviction. The district court accepted Sec. 2S1.2 as the applicable guideline and then granted both defendants downward departures from the range established by this guideline. At Russell Baker Jr.'s sentencing hearing, the court explained that Sec. 2S1.2 does substantially overrepresent the defendant's conduct. 43 At Roger Baker's sentencing hearing, the court said that there were mitigating circumstances not adequately taken into consideration by the guidelines. 44 The court did not, however, articulate the mitigating circumstances except to say that the defendant's core offense was mail fraud, and that the use of the money laundering guideline in 2S1.2 [over]represented the seriousness of the actual offense. 45 46 Section 5K2.0 of the sentencing guidelines and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b) authorize a district court to impose a sentence outside the range established by the applicable guidelines if the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described. This court has said that departures pursuant to these provisions are reserved for 'unusual' cases where there is something atypical about the defendant or the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime which significantly differ from the normal or 'heartland' conduct in the commission of the crime. 46 This court has made clear, however, that a mitigating circumstance may justify departure even if it varies only in degree (as opposed to in kind ) from circumstances embodied in the guidelines. 47 For example, in United States v. Williams, 48 this court held that post-arrest, pre-sentence recovery from addiction is a mitigating factor of the kind that the Commission adequately considered in fashioning the guidelines; nevertheless, a truly extraordinary post-arrest, pre-sentence recovery may exceed the degree of recovery contemplated [by the guidelines] and therefore justify a downward departure. 49 A downward departure may also be justified if the offense conduct does not typify the conduct anticipated by the Sentencing Commission for the applicable guideline. 50 47 Our review of the district court's downward departures in this case is hampered by that court's failure to articulate the mitigating circumstances upon which it relied. The Ninth Circuit has held that a downward departure is not permitted unless the district court has identified a mitigating circumstance of a kind or to a degree the Sentencing Commission did not adequately take into account when formulating the Guidelines. 51 Thus, in reviewing downward departures, the Ninth Circuit considers the reasons for departure actually articulated by the sentencing court. 52 We think this a sound approach. A district court granting a downward departure from the applicable guidelines should articulate the specific mitigating circumstances upon which it relies and the reasons these circumstances are of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission. Because the district court in this case did not do this, we remand this case with instructions that the court articulate the mitigating circumstances justifying the downward departures.