Opinion ID: 552387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Departure from the Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 43 After establishing a sentencing range of 57-71 months, the District Court departed from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced defendant to 36 months. The District Court explained its reasons for this departure: 44 I am always reluctant to depart from the guidelines because the guidelines are carefully thought out, but I do think in this case, considering all of the facts, that a downward departure is justified. It appears to me that, although I am satisfied that the jury was accurate in its determination, this is the first time this Defendant has been in any trouble, the circumstances are somewhat unusual here, so I am going to depart downward from the guidelines of 57 to 71 months. 45 The government contends that the District Court erred when it departed from the sentencing guidelines without stating an adequate reason for this departure. We agree. 46 The federal sentencing guidelines require a court to impose a sentence within the range established by the sentencing guidelines unless 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. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b) (Supp.1990). A court can consider only the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official commentary of the Sentencing Commission in determining whether the Sentencing Commission adequately took a particular factor into account. Id.; see United States v. Joan, 883 F.2d 491, 493 (6th Cir.1989). After conducting this analysis, a court may depart from the sentencing guidelines, but the court must state the specific reason for its departure. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(c)(2). This requirement is met if the court provides a short clear written statement or a reasoned statement from the bench. United States v. Perez, 871 F.2d 45, 47 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3227, 106 L.Ed.2d 576 (1989). 47 This Court applies a tripartite analysis to determine whether a district court's departure from the sentencing guidelines is justified: 48 First, the reviewing court determines whether the case is sufficiently 'unusual' to warrant departure. 49 . . . . . 50 Second, we determine whether the circumstances, if conceptually proper, actually exist in the particular case.... 51 Third, once we have assured ourselves that the sentencing court considered circumstances appropriate to the departure equation and that those factors enjoyed adequate record support, the direction and degree of departure must, on appeal, be measured by a standard of reasonableness. 52 United States v. Brewer, 899 F.2d 503, 506 (6th Cir.) (quoting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(e)(2)) (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 127, 112 L.Ed.2d 95 (1990). In the instant case, the District Court gave two reasons for departure: defendant's lack of a criminal record and unusual circumstances. Neither reason justifies departure from the sentencing guidelines. 53 The absence of a criminal record is taken into account by the sentencing guidelines. The policy statement in section 4A1.3 provides: 54 The lower limit of the range for a Category I criminal history is set for a first offender with the lowest risk of recidivism. Therefore, a departure below the lower limit of the guideline range for a Category I criminal history on the basis of the adequacy of criminal history cannot be appropriate. 55 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual Sec. 4A1.3 (Nov.1989). Thus, defendant was not entitled to further reduction based on his status as a first-time offender. 56 The District Court's reference to unusual circumstances fails to state a specific reason. Lacking an adequate explanation, this Court cannot engage in a meaningful review of the District Court's decision. United States v. Kennedy, 893 F.2d 825, 828 (6th Cir.1990). Thus, we find it necessary to remand this case to the District Court for resentencing.