Opinion ID: 599004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Luscier's History of Drug Abuse

Text: 9 In formulating the criminal history guidelines, the Sentencing Commission clearly contemplated the effect prior drug abuse should have on the length of custody. In the introductory comments to the criminal history chapter of the guidelines the Commission states, While empirical research has shown that other factors are correlated highly with the likelihood of recidivism, e.g., age and drug abuse, for policy reasons they were not included here at this time. U.S.S.G. ch. 4, pt. A intro. commentary. 10 It is in the guideline provisions for specific offender characteristics that the Commission addresses drug dependence. In the policy statement contained in section 5H1.4, the Commission acknowledges again that [s]ubstance abuse is highly correlated to an increased propensity to commit crime. The Commission recommends, therefore, that when an offender has a history of drug or alcohol abuse the sentencing court should condition supervised release on the offender's participation in a substance abuse rehabilitation program. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 policy statement (p.s.). 11 The introductory comments to the criminal history chapter, viewed in conjunction with section 5H1.4, reflect the fact that the Commission did contemplate the effect that a defendant's history of drug use should have on the length of custody. It appears that, faced with a choice between competing policies, the Commission opted for a sentencing scheme that encourages defendants to admit to and seek treatment for drug dependency, rather than one that treats more severely defendants who have a history of drug abuse. See U.S. v. Richison, 901 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that departure for drug dependency is warranted only in the exceptional case). Thus, while in the ordinary case drug addiction will influence the conditions of supervised release, past drug use should not affect time in custody unless the defendant's condition is so extraordinary that departure, rather than the measures discussed in section 5H1.4, is required. Id. 12 No facts were presented showing that Luscier's past drug use was exceptional within the meaning of Richison. Nor was there any showing why a longer term of incarceration was more appropriate than a long period of supervised release during which Luscier would be required to participate in a drug rehabilitation program. Therefore, we must vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. 3 13 Because we find that the district court did not identify evidence justifying departure, we will not proceed with the second and third steps of the Lira-Barraza analysis.