Court Opinion

ID: 9491396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:13:04.069561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:42.966705
License: Public Domain

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in departing upward to increase Johnson’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s view that the district court’s reliance on the proximity of the parsonage to the church in this ease warrants affirmance of the applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(a)(l) rather than § 2K1.4(a)(2) to Johnson’s offense. In my view, the district court’s application of the former was clearly erroneous. I would therefore vacate the sentence for a redetermination of Johnson’s base offense level.
The majority correctly concludes that Johnson’s knowledge of the risk of harm to firefighters is insufficient to warrant the application of § 2K1.4(a)(l) to this case because the provision’s requirement that a defendant knowingly created a substantial risk of harm to persons requires more than the knowledge that firefighters will' respond to the fire. The majority reasons, however, that the district court’s finding that the parsonage was “reasonably close” to the church and the pastor was in his home at the time of the fire is sufficient to warrant the use of § 2K1.4(a)(l)(A) to calculate Johnson’s base offense level.
An affirmance of the application of § 2K1.4(a)(l)(A), requires evidence that Johnson was “aware that it [was] practically certain” that his setting fire to the car engendered a substantial risk of harm to an occupant of the parsonage. See supra majority opinion’s discussion of Model Penal Code § 2.022(2)(b) p. 556. The district court found no awareness on Johnson’s part of the practical certainty of such a result. In fact, the district court found only that Johnson was certainly aware of the risk of harm to firefighters: “this defendant ... certainly was aware that the setting of a fire created a substantial risk of harm to, if no one else, the firefighters involved-” (emphasis added). Nothing in the record supports a finding that when Johnson set the car on fire he knew that the pastor was at home, and the district court acknowledged as much: “[Johnson] is not charged with having known that the pastor was home....”
Perhaps most importantly, the circumstances of Johnson’s offense created no practical certainty that a person in the parsonage would be harmed. The parsonage was at least fifty feet away from the church, separated by a grassy lot. Meanwhile, photos of the crime scene depict the ignited car as being so close to the church that a church door could not be fully opened without hitting the car. The only reference to the likelihood of harm to the parsonage, and by implication an occupant of the parsonage, is a fire chiefs testimony that “had the fire not been contained it was reasonable that the fire could have spread to the parsonage.” This is hardly a finding that Johnson’s offense created a “practical certainty” of harm to a person in the parsonage. Cf. United States v. Ruiz, 105 F.3d 1492, 1506-07 (1st Cir.1997) (stating that sentencing under “stringent ‘practically certain’ test” requires more than recklessness or negligence even where the defendant set fire to a store in the basement of an occupied residential duplex). Thus, in my view, Johnson did not possess the requisite mental culpability to justify application of § 2K1.4(a)(l)(A).1
Johnson set fire to a car in an attempt to burn a church. Section 2K1.4(a)(2) is the guideline which directly applies to this crime.2 The majority correctly rejected the district court’s reasoning that Johnson’s knowledge that firefighters would come to the burning church sufficed to place his offense within the ambit of § 2K1.4(a)(l). *559However, the majority relies on even weaker grounds for affirming the application of this provision. I see no reason to resort to a tortured interpretation of § 2K1.4(a)(l) when Johnson’s crime fits neatly within a commonsense reading of § 2K1.4(a)(2). Because I believe that there is no evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion, and the district court’s construction of the evidence is unreasonable, I would vacate the district court’s sentence and remand for re-determination of Johnson’s base offense level. See Heights Community Congress v. Hilltop Realty, Inc., 774 F.2d 135, 140 (6th Cir.1985) (stating that when reviewing for clear error, reversal is warranted when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed).

. Incidentally, the district court recognized that there was “some question” as to Johnson’s "capacity." The defendant has a well-documented history of mental illness and psychiatric treatment which may have impaired his judgment. In my opinion, this fact weighs against the application of § 2K1.4(a)(l)(A) as well.

. The presentence investigation report recommended that the district court use § 2K1.4(a)(2) to compute Johnson's base offense level.