Court Opinion

ID: 9490408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:42:54.935303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:05.191094
License: Public Domain

Tatel, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that the district court properly increased Studevent’s offense level under subsection 2Fl.l(b)(l) of the Guidelines to reflect intended loss. Because I believe the district court may have “ ‘misconstrued] ... its authority to depart,’” United States v. Pinnick, 47 F.3d 434, 439 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 938 F.2d 1293, 1296 (D.C.Cir.1991)), under application note 10 of section 2F1.1, however, I would remand for reconsideration of Studevent’s request for a downward departure.
The district court found that its $535,592 loss determination “somewhat overstate[d] the seriousness of Studevent’s crimes” but denied the departure request, at least in part, because “[njevertheless, there [was] no rational number to put on the loss other than the sum of the checks themselves.” United States v. Studevent, Crim. No. 95-0175, Memorandum and Order at 4 (D.D.C. May 30, 1996), reprinted in Appellant’s App. 139-41. Unlike my colleagues, I doubt that the latter statement simply reflects the district court’s rejection of Studevent’s sentencing entrapment claim. In my view, it suggests instead that the district court may have believed that a downward departure under note 10 required an alternative loss figure. Having already determined that the loss under subsection (b)(1) overstated the seriousness of the offense, however, the question for the district court was whether Studevent’s offense level warranted reduction to rectify the concededly imperfect fit between the loss calculation and his degree of culpability, not whether another dollar figure better described the loss.
The record suggests that the district court might have answered the correct question had it not felt limited by its inability to calculate an alternative loss figure. Reaching the correct result on the intended loss issue, the district court nevertheless ap*1566peared troubled by its implications for Stude-vent. At a presentencing hearing, the district judge asked defense counsel to “give [him] a vehicle” to distinguish the Government’s authorities, stating, “I am not disinclined to what it is that you’re proposing, ... I will take all the help that you can give me.” Tr. (Apr. 3,1996) at 6. After being “[fjorced to choose” between the views of our sister circuits, Memorandum and Order at 3, reprinted in Appellant’s App. 140, not only did the district court find that Studevent’s intended losses “somewhat overstated” the gravity of his offense, but it also listed several factors which it apparently thought might warrant a departure, including the modest sum Studevent actually gained from his crimes. See Id. at 4, reprinted in Appellant’s App. 141. Although I am not sure whether all the district court’s concerns could serve as the basis'for a note 10 departure, the great disparity between the intended and probable losses in this case certainly could. Especially because our ruling on the intended loss issue relies heavily on the analysis in United States v. Coffman, 94 F.3d 330 (7th Cir.1996)—a case undecided when the district court considered Studevent’s request — I would give the district court, freed from the need to calculate an alternative loss figure, an opportunity to reconsider whether Stude-vent’s case warrants a departure.