Court Opinion

ID: 9487038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:06:46.68005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:04.105362
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Circuit Judge,
separately concurring.
Although I generally believe trial judges should be allotted more discretion in sentencing, this is one of the few cases illustrating that occasionally, the uniformity and consistency mandated by the Sentencing Guidelines prevent judicial abuse of discretion.
The district court found Dalecke’s conviction was an “atypical” case warranting downward departure. The most important factor the district court cited was that police acquired possession of the gun as a result of a vindictive domestic dispute between Daleeke and his girlfriend.
In creating the Sentencing Commission, Congress strove for uniformity in sentencing. United States v. Brewer, 899 F.2d 503, 506 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 844, 111 S.Ct. 127, 112 L.Ed.2d 95 (1990). A sentencing court may depart from the sentence specified by the Guidelines only if it “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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). The sentencing court should not treat as unique or unusual factors the Guidelines have expressly found to be irrelevant. United States v. Brewer, 899 F.2d at 511; United States v. Todd, 920 F.2d 399, 408 (6th Cir.1990).
In reviewing the sentencing court’s downward departure, we determine whether:
1) the case is sufficiently unusual to warrant departure;
2) the circumstances actually exist; and
3) the direction and degree of departure is reasonably supported.
United States v. Brewer, 899 F.2d at 506.
At first blush this case may appear “sufficiently unusual” to warrant departure, but it is actually quite mundane. The most important factor in finding the case was unusual, according to the district court, was the method of apprehension resulting in multiple punishments.
Here, however, there was no atypical apprehension of Daleeke. Self-centered motives of informants are not sufficiently unusual to warrant departure. Rather, it is unusual for informants, especially those close to offenders, to cooperate with officials absent incentives. I believe it is immaterial whether the informant is a co-conspirator turned government’s witness to receive immunity, or is a girlfriend who witnesses illegal activity and is later scorned by the offender.
Regarding the many punishments, the majority correctly stated, “the sentencing guidelines expressly instruct the district court on how to proceed when sentencing a defendant already serving a sentence for a related offense.”
While I dislike taking discretion from trial judges, the Guidelines were established to bring uniformity and consistency into sentencing. Trial judges must not be allowed to use “unusual circumstances” as a pretext for considering race, national origin or socioeconomic factors, which is clearly not allowed. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10. Under the guidelines, it is irrelevant whether a defendant is an indigent teenager from Detroit, Michigan or a forty-one year old successful businessman from Wyoming, Michigan.