Court Opinion

ID: 988131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:48:30.589466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:17.644323
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 95-5346

JOHN THOMAS WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation.
(CR-93-386-B)

Submitted: December 14, 1995

Decided: January 9, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard William Winelander, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Stephen S. Zimmermann,
Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Thomas Watson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West
Supp. 1995), and was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment. He
appeals his sentence, contending that the district court failed to inter-
pret correctly its authority to depart under USSG§ 5K2.13, p.s.
(Diminished Capacity).1 Finding no error, we affirm.

A discretionary decision not to depart from the sentencing guide-
line range is not reviewable on appeal, see United States v. Bayerle,
898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990), but
when the district court refuses to depart because of an apparent lack
of legal authority to depart, its decision is reviewable. Id. at 31;
United States v. Hall, 977 F.2d 861, 863 (4th Cir. 1992). Watson
claims that the district court misconstrued the extent and nature of its
discretion to depart for diminished mental capacity. The government
argues that the district court understood its authority and exercised its
discretion in deciding not to depart. Because the district court held
that USSG § 5H1.4, p.s. (Physical Condition Including Drug or Alco-
hol Dependence or Abuse) precluded a departure, Watson's appeal is
reviewable.

A downward departure may be warranted for diminished capacity
if, at the time of the offense, the defendant was"suffering from signif-
icantly reduced mental capacity not resulting from voluntary use of
drugs." USSG § 5K2.13. Under § 5H1.4, drug dependence or abuse
is not a reason for imposing a sentence below the guidelines.
_________________________________________________________________
1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1994).

                     2
Watson participated in a heroin conspiracy from December 1992 to
August 1993. He first worked as the manager of one of the dis-
tribution locations, but was fired and returned a short while later as
a street runner. At Watson's sentencing hearing, Dr. Michael Spodak,
a forensic psychiatrist, testified that Watson began voluntarily inject-
ing drugs in 1987 and by early 1992 was so addicted to heroin that
his drug use and drug-seeking activities were involuntary. Dr. Spodak
characterized Watson's participation in the heroin conspiracy as
involuntary drug-seeking behavior which was connected to a dimin-
ished mental capacity resulting from his addiction. 2

However, Watson told Dr. Spodak that he injected heroin at 2:00
a.m. on the day of his arrest. The federal agent who arrested Watson
at 10:00 a.m. and remained in his company for the following four
hours testified that Watson displayed none of the withdrawal symp-
toms that Dr. Spodak said would be apparent within eight hours when
a severely addicted person is deprived of heroin. Moreover, at a
detention hearing the next day, Watson informed the court that he was
not going through withdrawal and would test negative for drugs after
the weekend if he were allowed to remain free. He was released and
tested negative on the following Monday; he was later detained again
after his drug use resumed.

The district court found that drug addiction was specifically
excluded as a reason for departure under § 5H1.4, noting Fourth Cir-
cuit precedent. See United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 887 n.2
(4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3563 (U.S.
Jan. 23, 1995) (No. 94-6500); United States v. Deigert, 916 F.2d 916,
919 n.2 (4th Cir. 1990). Consequently, the court held that "involun-
tary use of drugs" resulting in diminished mental capacity under
§ 5K2.13 must mean something other than drug addiction caused by
voluntary drug use unrelated to a medical need or pre-existing mental
illness. We agree. See United States v. Cantu , 12 F.3d 1506, 1514-15
(9th Cir. 1993) (departure possible because mental condition preceded
and caused alcoholism); cf. United States v. Anders, 956 F.2d 907,
912 (4th Cir. 1992) (even if bank robber's drug addiction constituted
_________________________________________________________________
2 Dr. Spodak testified that Watson had suffered two head injuries in the
past and had a personality disorder. He did not suggest that either cir-
cumstance contributed to Watson's participation in the conspiracy.

                    3
involuntary drug use, it was not extraordinary circumstance warrant-
ing § 5K2.13 departure), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 61 U.S.L.W.
3651 (U.S. Mar. 22, 1993) (No. 92-6983). On the facts before it, the
district court correctly interpreted the guideline and found that a
departure was not authorized in this case.

The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore affirmed.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    4