Court Opinion

ID: 9483592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:25:36.64312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:43.044270
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am in agreement with part II.B. of Judge Suhrheinrich’s opinion and would therefore concur in the reversal and remand for resentencing based on the district court’s erroneous acceptance of the belated claim of “diminished mental capacity” under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, p.s. Whether the district court’s action in departing downward on this basis was an abuse of discretion or merely an erroneous determination unsupported by the evidence is not important — the result is the same. I agree with the conclusion that there was no adequate medical or expert diagnosis to support defendant’s claim of diminished mental capacity over the extended period of time he was devising, executing, and concealing a complicated fraudulent scheme against the bank in which he served as a responsible officer.
I would not adopt the rationale of part II.A. of the opinion. If there were an ambiguity in the plea agreement, I could not find on this record a reasonable basis for district court to assume that the government somehow “agree[d] not to oppose the defendant’s request for a downward departure.” It seems clear that the parties agreed that Johnson would “receive a sentence within the range of the Sentencing Guidelines.” (emphasis added).
I concur, then, in the result reached that the matter of sentencing within the guideline range be remanded to the district court. '■