Court Opinion

ID: 9497639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:56:31.344152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:19.640448
License: Public Domain

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I.
My colleague, Judge Nygaard, in his fair, dispassionate opinion for the majority, has accurately described the relevant facts, and even the applicable law, to be considered in this appeal. However, I cannot join the majority’s conclusion that a millionaire defendant, who has admitted to both securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and filing a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), should be able to avoid even the short imprisonment which the Sentencing Guidelines direct. The majority reaches that conclusion by approving the District Court’s grant of a downward departure for good works, a reason discouraged by the Sentencing Guidelines. I find persuasive instead the Government’s argument on its appeal that the grant of a downward departure and the extent of that departure were unwarranted.
The initial issue to consider is our scope of review of the District Court’s decision to *179depart downward. Unlike the previous law, when we deferred to the District Court’s sentencing discretion, the PROTECT Act mandates de novo review. This reflects Congress’ concern with the number of downward departures granted by the district courts and its belief that lenient sentencing can best be remedied by the appellate courts. See 149 Cong. Rec. H2420-2424 (daily ed. Mar. 27, 2003) (statement of Rep. Feeney) (“Although the guidelines continue to state that departures should be very rare occurrences, they have in fact proved to be anything but.... [District] Judges who dislike the Sentencing Reform Act and the sentencing guidelines now have significant discretion to avoid applying a sentence within the range established by the commission, and it is difficult for government to effectively appeal such cases.”); PROTECT Act, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66, at 59 (2003), reprinted in 2003 U.S.C.C.A.N. (117 Stat.) 683, 694 (stating that “this section would ... change the standard of review for appellate courts to a de novo review to allow appellate courts more effectively to review illegal and inappropriate downward departures”); see also Letter from Jamie E. Brown, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, to Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (Apr. 4, 2003), reprinted in 149 Cong. Rec. S5,127-28 (daily ed. Apr. 10, 2003) (“The bill would make it easier for the Government to appeal illegal downward departures by requiring appellate courts to undertake a de novo review of departure decisions.”); see generally Andrew D. Goldstein, Note, What Feeney Got Right: Why Courts of Appeal Should Review Sentencing Departures De Novo, 113 Yale L.J.1955 (2004).
As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized, the PROTECT Act reflects, in part, Congress’ “disinclination towards leniency for white collar criminals” and its frustration with the fact that these defendants receive probation more often than other offenders who commit crimes of comparable severity. See United States v. Thurston, 358 F.3d 51, 79 (1st Cir.2004); see also Testimony of then Sentencing Commissioner Stephen Breyer Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 22, 1987, reproduced in 146 PLI/Crim 811, 824 (1987) (“The Commission considers present sentencing practices, in which white collar criminals receive probation more often than other offenders who committed crimes of comparable severity, to be unfair.”). Although the majority recognizes the changed standard of review, see also United States v. Dickerson, 381 F.3d 251, 262 (3d Cir.2004), I believe it has failed to apply it to the situation before us.
Cooper is the paradigmatic white collar criminal. While CEO of Biocontrol Technology, Inc., he failed to report $891,153 in income and, in addition, he pledged the company’s certificates of deposit as collateral to secure his personal loans without securing the approval of the company’s Board and without making the required disclosure to the SEC. Cooper’s offense level was set at 14, resulting from a base offense level of 17 with a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a criminal history of I. The consequent sentencing range was fourteen to twenty-one months imprisonment, which was the presumptive sentence that Cooper should have been required to serve.
Instead, undoubtedly seeking to avoid any imprisonment for the crimes that he committed, Cooper sought two downward departures, one for a three-level reduction for good works and the other a two-level reduction on the ground that the tax tables overstated the seriousness of his offense. The District Court denied the two-level reduction, and Cooper does not challenge *180that ruling on appeal. However, Cooper’s argument about his charitable donations and activities persuaded the District Court to depart downward. Notwithstanding that Cooper had sought only a three-level downward departure on that ground, the District Court granted a four-level downward departure, thereby insuring that Cooper, an admitted criminal, would serve no prison time.
We review the extent of the departure for abuse of discretion. Although I believe, unlike my colleagues in the majority, that a fair de novo review requires reversal of the decision to depart downward, I also believe that, in the exercise of our discretion, we should overturn the District Court’s departure at a level beyond even that requ'ested by Cooper.
II.
In United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758 (3d Cir.2000), we stated that in order to be entitled to a downward departure for good works, a defendant’s civic service, charity, and philanthropy must be “beyond the norm,” i.e., “exceptional,” for a person with his or her resources who had obtained the equivalent station in life. Id. at 775. Cooper’s were not. Rather, considering Cooper’s former status as the head of a large, publicly-traded corporation, his service and charity were merely typical for someone in his position. United States v. Thurston, 358 F.3d 51, 78-80 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Haversat, 22 F.3d 790, 796 (8th Cir.1994).
The majority concludes, and I. agree, that Cooper’s monetary donations to various charitable organizations cannot, standing alone, support a downward departure. Rather, as noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, “[t]hose who donate large sums because they can should not gain an advantage over those who do not make such donations because they cannot.” Thurston, 358 F.3d at 79; see also Serafini, 233 F.3d at 775 (“Since [defendant] is a wealthy individual, we must ensure that a district court does not run afoul of the prohibition against considering socioeconomic differences in relying on financial contributions as a basis for departure.”); United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 434 (6th Cir.2000) (noting that allowing downward departures on basis of defendant’s monetary contributions would run afoul of not only the Guidelines but also of “the ancient concept of justice that a man of wealth, position, power, and prestige should not be given special consideration in the law”); United States v. McHan, 920 F.2d 244, 248 (4th Cir.1990) (“[T]o allow any affluent offender to point to the good his money has performed and to receive a downward departure from the calculated offense level on that basis is to make a mockery of the Guidelines.”). Indeed, as the Government points out, for the most part the financial contributions for which Cooper seeks credit were made by the corporation, not by Cooper personally. Thus, the majority recognizes that we must focus on Cooper’s direct personal contributions, rather than on his more detached acts of donating money.
The majority and I part ways in our evaluation of Cooper’s personal contributions and service to his community. The principal activity relied upon by the majority is Cooper’s organization and running of a football team for the benefit of youth in an economically depressed neighborhood of Pittsburgh and the fact that, through this involvement, Cooper came to serve as mentor to several of the young players. In particular, Cooper became an active part in the life of Alonzo Roebuck, a young man Cooper helped through high school *181and then college.2
Undoubtedly, Cooper’s contributions assisted greatly in the lives of these young people — his efforts certainly are to be applauded. Nonetheless, Cooper’s actions were not beyond the norm; it cannot be said that Cooper’s civic acts were in any way “extraordinary” when compared to other cases involving similarly-situated defendants presenting charitable acts. See, e.g., United States v. Neil, 903 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir.1990) (“Neil has ... coached young athletes in his community, but there is nothing in these activities to distinguish Neil from other defendants who can make the same showing.”); United States v. Jordan, 130 F.Supp.2d 665, 673 (E.D.Pa.2001) (finding, despite defendant’s apparent position “as a mentor and role model for youth in his neighborhood,” that defendant’s “civic, charitable, and public service and other good works, while commendable, are not so exceptional or extraordinary for a person in [the defendant’s] circumstances as to warrant a downward departure”).
Cooper’s work with Roebuck and the other youths, although certainly laudable, cannot be considered atypical for individuals occupying Cooper’s station in life. Many, if not most, of these activities were undertaken while Cooper was an executive of a corporation that receives publicity and goodwill as a result. In Thurston, the court noted that business leaders “are often expected, by virtue of their positions to engage in civic and charitable activities.” Thurston, 358 F.3d at 79. In other words, although Cooper’s actions certainly bene-fitted the targeted youths, they also bene-fitted Cooper’s corporation and ultimately therefore, Cooper himself. It is also notable that Cooper did not begin some of his charitable work until after the inception of the investigation that led to the instant conviction; for example, he did not offer to advise the Mel Blount Youth Home until “the early part of 2000.” App. at 111. This timing, of course, calls into question the true impetus undergirding Cooper’s charity.
Nor can we overlook the testimony of Cooper’s son, Garrett Lee Cooper, that although his father personally drove the inner-city youth to his affluent neighborhood for football practice, he did so, at least in part, so that Garrett — himself engaged in sports — could practice with individuals that the Coopers perceived as more formidable players. See App. at 133 (“One, the selfish feeling that my father wanted me to play with the talented attributes that Alonzo and his friends had. Because, if you want to be good in sports, you need to play with these types of kids.”).
The majority relies in large part on our decision in Serafim where we upheld a downward departure. The majority recognizes that Serafini was decided before enactment of the PROTECT Act, but it relegates that point to a footnote and appears not to have absorbed the changed standard of review in its analysis. I believe Congress intended that we scrutinize departures, such as that given in this case, more strictly than the majority does here. It is time that this court, like our colleagues on the First Circuit, absorbs and applies the PROTECT Act’s intention that the under-sentencing of white collar criminals should cease.
Finally, Cooper provided the District Court with no facts whatsoever that would allow for any accurate estimation of how much personal time he actually spent involved in civic service. See generally *182United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 291 (3d Cir.1989) (noting that “when the defendant is attempting to justify a downward departure, it is usually the defendant who bears the burden of persuasion”). Rather, Cooper’s evidence respecting the time commitment imposed by his charitable activities sounds merely in vague generalities. It offers no basis for a finding that Cooper’s charitable activities required a significant, let alone exceptional, forfeiture of his time. Cf. United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 434 (6th Cir.2000).
I believe that considered in perspective of his position in life, Cooper’s charitable works do not serve to place his situation “ ‘outside the heartland’ ” of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Dickerson, 381 F.3d 251, 264 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 96, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)). Rather, although Cooper’s community service is certainly worthy of praise, it cannot be considered atypical. United States v. Morken, 133 F.3d 628, 630 (8th Cir.1998) (“Although laudable, [defendant’s] record of good works is neither exceptional nor out of the ordinary for someone of his income and preeminence.”). In sum, therefore, I conclude that Cooper’s civic activities provided insufficient grounds for the District Court’s downward departure. For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.

. The majority also recounts Cooper’s work with the Mel Blount Youth Home, his annual Christmas party for underprivileged children, and his work with Athletes Against Drugs and Violence.