Court Opinion

ID: 9484497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:55:08.183906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:16.852936
License: Public Domain

LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the court’s decision to affirm Dr. Groene’s conviction, but I respectfully dissent from its decision to remand this case for resentencing.
We may set aside a district court’s departure from the applicable guideline range if the resulting sentence is “unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(2). In making such a determination, we “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). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” Williams v. United States, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1121, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992).
The district court’s decision to depart was based upon factors “not ordinarily relevant” to sentencing under the Guidelines — what Chief Judge Breyer recently described as “discouraged factors.” United States v. Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 948 (1st Cir.1993). Such factors warrant departure only if present in unusual kind or degree. The district court recognized this legal constraint on its discretion, but nonetheless concluded that Dr. Groene’s vocational skills are sufficiently unusual to warrant a departure. The departure, relatively modest in terms of total punishment, was intended to impose detention without depriving the citizens of Dr. Groene’s rural community of his valued services.
As the court seems to recognize, the district court committed no error of law in concluding that these discouraged factors might justify a downward departure in unusual circumstances. Therefore, we are left to review, under a statutory reasonableness standard, the district court’s judgment that the circumstances in this ease were sufficiently unusual to warrant a departure. We have repeatedly stated that such a departure decision
involves what is quintessentially a judgment call. District courts are in the front lines, sentencing flesh-and-blood defendants. The dynamics of the situation may be difficult to gauge from the antiseptic nature of a sterile paper record. Therefore, appellate review must occur with full awareness of, and respect for, the trier’s superior “feel” for the case. We will not lightly disturb decisions to depart.
United States v. Passmore, 984 F.2d 933, 937-38 (8th Cir.1993), quoting United States *609v. Lang, 898 F.2d 1378, 1380 (8th Cir.1990). I regret that in this ease the court has abandoned the wise counsel of these cases and of Williams and has instead substituted its judgment for that of the district court. I would affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.