Court Opinion

ID: 9486445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:48:06.850401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:43.568428
License: Public Domain

HILL, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
I agree with all that is said and held by the panel majority with one exception. I express my view on that one part of the opinion as follows:
The panel affirms the district court’s conclusion that this bank robbery was “not an ordinary” one. I disagree. If there is a heartland of typical robbery cases under section 2B3.1, this seems to me to lie within it. The offense was committed by three armed men and a waiting accomplice during banking business hours. The use of a single weapon by each of the three robbers who entered the bank would seem to be standard operating procedure for a bank robbery rather than the weapon use “substantially in excess of that [ ] ordinarily [ ] involved in the offense,” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, p.s., necessary for a departure. In contrast, see United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir.1991) (enhancement for use of multiple weapons in drug offense warranted where a single defendant’s “arsenal of 18 firearms, some fully automatic, elevated the factor of weapon possession in this case to an extraordinary level.”)
Similarly, neither Fernandez’ behavior toward the assistant manager nor the overall conduct of the robbery were outside the range of typical robbery cases the Commission addressed through section 2B3.1 of the guidelines. Armed bank robbery by defini*1173tion involves danger to the public and to bank employees, danger that the Sentencing Commission factored into the robbery sentencing structure. For an illustration of excessive or atypical circumstances warranting departure from the guideline sentence, see United States v. Baker, 914 F.2d 208, 210 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1099, 111 S.Ct. 993, 112 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1991) (upward departure affirmed on appeal where acquisition of dynamite included abduction at gunpoint of supply store owner and where subsequent armed robbery of credit union included brandishing of two firearms and display of briefcase full of dynamite with threat to blow up the building). In the instant case, while the danger to the public and to the bank employees was quite serious, I do not believe it was at an extreme or unusual level for an armed bank robbery. I should conclude that this robbery was not a “rare occurrence,” U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A, 4(b), warranting an upward departure from the prescribed guideline sentence.
I have no difficulty agreeing with the district judge, and the court, today, that this defendant/appellant was guilty of outrageous conduct which, in a civilized society, is deserving of a sentence which will punish him and deter others from similar unacceptable conduct. Whether or not the Sentencing Guidelines provide such a sentence in eases like this one is a matter for the Sentencing Commission. As stated above, the Commission appears to have taken into consideration the outrageous nature of the offense involved here and has made provision for it in the guidelines.
Because I conclude that the factors relied upon by the district judge for a departure from the base offense level were factors already “adequately consider[ed]” by the guidelines, Weaver, 920 F.2d at 1573, I should not undertake the second and third steps of the Weaver inquiry. Fernandez’ base offense level reflected his earlier offenses, his leadership role in this offense, the type of crime, the target institution, the weapons used, and the loss to the bank. Under these circumstances, departure for the reasons expressed by the district court was inappropriate.
I am not persuaded to the contrary of this view by the bank robbery statistics considered by the majority. Aside from the fact that this material may constitute evidence inappropriately evaluated by the appellate court, it seems to me that the differences between the “typical” bank robbery (if there be such a thing) and this case are merely differences and not real distinctions. These people did what armed bank robbers do.
Perhaps nowhere in the establishment of guideline sentencing was it found that, across the nation, there were disparate sentences any greater than the sentences in armed bank robbery cases. There were regional differences. The region of this circuit probably handed down more stringent custodial sentences for bank robbery than other regions. We are inclined to find that the guideline sentences for armed bank robbery are inadequate. They may be. But they are the guidelines and we are not at liberty to correct them by departure.