Opinion ID: 554583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Cecil

Text: 54 Cecil claims the district court abused its discretion 1) in refusing either to allow Cecil credit for time served on a related state-imposed sentence or to allow Cecil to serve the state and federal sentences concurrently; and 2) in failing to consider the state-imposed sentence and a state plea bargaining agreement as mitigating factors. 55 1. The court's refusal to impose a term concurrent with the state sentence or to grant credit for time served on the state sentence. 56 Cecil had pleaded guilty to growing marijuana in Missouri and received a sentence of eight years from a Missouri state court. He served seven months of the sentence when he was released on shock probation. Apparently he had been free on probation for about nine months when he was arrested on the federal charges. 57 Cecil relies upon U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 to support his contention that the court should have run his federal sentence concurrently with the state-imposed sentence. That section reads as follows: 58 Sec. 5G1.3. Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Serving an Unexpired Term of Imprisonment 59 If the instant offense was committed while the defendant was serving a term of imprisonment (including work release, furlough, or escape status), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the unexpired term of imprisonment. Commentary 60 Under this guideline, the court shall impose a consecutive sentence where the instant offense (or any part thereof) was committed while the defendant was serving an unexpired term of imprisonment. 61 Where the defendant is serving an unexpired term of imprisonment, but did not commit the instant offense while serving that term of imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run consecutively or concurrently with the unexpired term of imprisonment. The court may consider imposing a sentence for the instant offense that results in a combined sentence that approximates the total punishment that would have been imposed under Sec. 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) had all of the offenses been federal offenses for which sentences were being imposed at the same time. Where the defendant is serving a terem of imprisonment for a state offense, the information available may permit only a rough estimate of the total punishment that would have been imposed under the guidelines. It is not intended that the above methodology be applied in a manner that unduly complicates or prolongs the sentencing process. 62 U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 and comment. (1989) (emphasis added). 63 This provision does not apply to Cecil's situation since the criminal conspiracy did not occur while he was serving a term of imprisonment. Logically, the conspiracy must have occurred prior to the imprisonment or while Cecil was out on probation. The guideline does not list probation as serving a term of imprisonment, while it does specifically mention work release, furlough, and escape status. Also, it is unclear what the unexpired term of imprisonment would be since we do not know whether Missouri has revoked Cecil's parole, although presumably it has. Additionally, it appears that the state offense was related to the 24,000- or 25,000-plant farm and not to the 959-plant farms which were the subject of the federal superceding information. Cecil offers no evidence that the same farm was at issue for both the federal and state sentences. In any case, the guideline language sets forth the circumstances in which a consecutive sentence is mandatory; this language does not create a right to a concurrent sentence with credit for time served. The decision to grant credit or a concurrent sentence thus is left to the sound discretion of the district court. 64 Cecil has not established a right under the guidelines to serve his federal sentence concurrent with the state sentence or to receive credit for time served. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence with no credit for time served. 65 2. The court's refusal to consider time served as a 66 mitigating factor warranting deviation from the guidelines. 67 The district court may deviate from the indicated guideline range 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. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b); U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.0, p.s. However, the defendant may not appeal from the district court's decision not to deviate: 68 A defendant may file a notice of appeal in the district court for review of an otherwise final sentence if the sentence-- 69 (1) was imposed in violation of law; 70 (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; or 71 (3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range ...; or 72 (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. 73 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a). 74 Under this code section, A sentence which is within the Guidelines, and otherwise valid ... is not appealable on the grounds that the sentencing judge failed to depart from the Guidelines.... United States v. Draper, 888 F.2d 1100, 1105 (6th Cir.1989). Therefore, Cecil may not appeal his sentence to this court on the ground that the district court failed to deviate from the guidelines on the basis of a mitigating factor.