Opinion ID: 765728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Downward Departure Based on Disparity of Sentence

Text: 15 Ordinarily, decisions by a district court not to depart downward from the prescribed sentencing guidelines range are unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Chase, 174 F.3d 1193, 1195 (11th Cir.1999). Such decisions are reviewable, however, if the district court denies the downward departure because of an erroneous belief that the court lacked the authority to make such a departure. See id. 16 Micah argues that the district court thought that it had no authority to downwardly depart on the basis of a gross disparity in sentence between Micah and White, despite their similar conduct. He points to the following exchange between his attorney and the court in support of this claim: 7 17 Mr. Martin: Your Honor, I think I am entitled to go on the record whether the Court is of the mind that it is not entitled to downwardly depart because of the disparity and under the Koon case-- 18 The Court: Yes.... I am saying when I said I am denying it without comment, I want the record to reflect that I believe I have already addressed it on the record and denied it on the record and, yes, I am denying your motion for downward departure based on disparity in the sentence between ... the guideline that is now going to be applicable to your client versus the guideline to Mr. White. 19 7 Rec. on Appeal, at 69-70. 20 Had the court simply stopped at yes, we might conclude that Micah's contention is a plausible interpretation of the district court's understanding of his authority, or at least that there was significant ambiguity. See United States v. Webb, 139 F.3d 1390, 1395 (11th Cir.1998) (concluding that the district court expressed ambivalence about its authority to depart and holding that on balance ... the record more strongly suggests that the court believed that it was not authorized). However, the entire statement makes it reasonably clear to us that all the court was doing was incorporating its prior discussion of the downward departure as the basis for its ruling. In that prior discussion, the court rejected the premise upon which Micah's motion for downward departure was based: namely, that Micah and White were similarly situated, such that their sentences should be roughly equivalent if the goals of the Sentencing Guidelines are to be met. The court distinguished Micah's situation from that of White by saying: 21 So a different Judge, different facts before that Judge, that was a plea, not a trial. I mean, the difference there not because he is being punished for going to trial, but how much evidence is before the Court at the time of sentencing. A lot more comes out at a trial that the Judge is aware of when a person goes to trial than you hear at the time of sentencing. 22 ... 23 There is a money laundering charge here that was not present in Mr. White's case. And the fact that he did not get [the] obstruction [enhancement], I don't know if the government argued for obstruction. 24 7 Rec. on Appeal, at 31, 33-34. We think these statements, when read in conjunction with the ultimate denial of the downward departure, strongly point to the conclusion that the district court exercised its discretion in denying the downward departure based on its determination that White and Micah were not actually similarly situated. In other words, whether or not the court believed it had the authority to depart on the basis of a sentencing disparity, the court did not believe that such a departure would be warranted in this case. 8 We will not disturb this conclusion. 9