Court Opinion

ID: 9483373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:18:51.701114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:35.559186
License: Public Domain

STAMP, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
While the Sentencing Commission has stated, as noted by the majority, that “[fjamily ties and responsibilities and community ties are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the guidelines”, U.S.S.G. § 6H1.6 (emphasis added), this admonition has been and must be taken to mean that there may well be situations in which a district court could, under extraordinary circumstances, properly depart from the applicable guidelines in sentencing. Indeed, this is the express direction of this Court in both United States v. Brand, 907 F.2d 31, 33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 585, 112 L.Ed.2d 590 (1990), and United States v. Goff, 907 F.2d 1441, 1446 (4th Cir.1990). The Brand Court, while finding that no departure was warranted under the particular facts presented in that case, stated: “Although there doubtless are circumstances in which unique family responsibilities might justify a downward departure, these circumstances are not present here.” Brand, 907 F.2d at 33.
In the present case, the district court, following a thorough hearing at the time of Bell’s sentencing at which it heard the testimony of five witnesses concluded that, based upon its consideration of the evidence, a departure below the guideline range was in order.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 provides, in part:
... The court of appeals shall give due regard to the opportunity of the district *540court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.
18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(4) (1992).
The district court determined that, in accordance with the principles set forth by the Second Circuit in United States v. Alba, 933 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir.1991), the negative impact of a long prison sentence upon the family unit could be grounds for a downward departure under the Sentencing Guidelines. While the district court readily conceded that Alba is not controlling upon this circuit, the court concluded that neither the Sentencing Guidelines nor this circuit’s case law prohibit considering family impact in extraordinary circumstances in determining whether to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court made a finding, based upon a careful review of the particular circumstances presented to it, including the testimony at the sentencing hearing, that Bell’s imprisonment under the usual Guideline range might well result in the destruction of an otherwise strong family unit. The district court then concluded that those circumstances were sufficiently extraordinary to permit a downward departure. That finding, in my opinion, was not clearly erroneous.1 Consequently, I would vote to affirm the sentence of the district court.2

. “A finding is 'clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).

. I also believe that the district court, following United States v. Hummer, 916 F.2d 186 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1608, 113 L.Ed.2d 670 (1991), properly applied the balancing test to be used in determining the extent of the departure and that, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the departure.