United States v. Whitaker

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
AUG 17 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 97-5203
JOHN HUDSON WHITAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 96-CR-12-H)
Submitted on the briefs:
Gerald L. Hilsher of Shipley, Jennings & Champlin, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Defendant-Appellant.
Stephen C. Lewis, United States Attorney, and Allen J. Litchfield, Assistant United States
Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
_________________________
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
_________________________
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Defendant appeals the sentence imposed on him by the district court following his
plea of guilty to conspiracy to travel interstate to facilitate a narcotics enterprise in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). He asserts that the district court erred by refusing to
depart downward from the sentencing range applicable under the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines because of his post-offense rehabilitation efforts. The district court found that
it lacked the authority to consider this factor as a basis for downward departure, based on
our holding in United States v. Ziegler, 39 F.3d 1058, 1061 (10th Cir. 1994). See R., Vol.
II at 432, 435. However, after this court decided Ziegler, the Supreme Court held in
Koon v. United States that any potential basis for a downward departure not specifically
prohibited by the Sentencing Commission may be considered by a district court. See
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 108-09 (1996). We conclude that Koon allows
exceptional efforts at drug rehabilitation to be considered as a basis for a downward
departure from the applicable guideline sentence because these efforts were not expressly
forbidden as a basis for departure by the Sentencing Commission. Therefore, we vacate
the sentence imposed and remand to allow the district court to consider whether
Defendant’s rehabilitation efforts were extraordinary or exceptional, and thus an
-2-
appropriate basis for a downward departure.
Defendant filed a Motion for Downward Departure prior to sentencing, asserting
that his exemplary post-offense efforts at rehabilitation, including community service and
his continued drug-free status, provided a basis for a downward departure from the
applicable sentencing range. The district court rejected Defendant’s argument that the
Supreme Court’s holding in Koon effectively overruled this court’s holding in Ziegler
that even extraordinary efforts at drug rehabilitation could not be a basis for a downward
departure. Despite Defendant’s numerous objections, the district court adopted the
findings of the presentence report and imposed the maximum guideline sentence of sixty
months imprisonment.
This court may “exercise jurisdiction to review a sentencing court’s refusal to
depart from the sentencing guidelines [only] in the very rare circumstance that the district
court states that it does not have any authority to depart from the sentencing guideline
range for the entire class of circumstances proffered by the defendant.” United States v.
Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 887 (10th Cir. 1998). When a district court does not correctly
understand its authority to depart from the guidelines this court may exercise jurisdiction
to review the refusal to grant a departure. See United States v. Contreras, 59 F.3d 1038,
1040 (10th Cir. 1995).
District courts must impose a criminal sentence within the range resulting from a
proper application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines “unless the court finds that there
-3-
exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately
taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that
should result in a sentence different from that described.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). In
Ziegler we held that the fact that defendant made extraordinary efforts at drug
rehabilitation was not a mitigating factor not adequately taken into consideration by the
guidelines, and, therefore, efforts at rehabilitation could not be a basis for departure. See
Ziegler, 39 F.3d at 1061-62.
After we decided Ziegler, the Supreme Court “illuminated” the analysis a court
should employ to determine when it may depart from the applicable guideline range.
United States v. Brock, 108 F.3d 31, 33 (4th Cir. 1997). The Supreme Court stated that a
federal court reviewing a decision to depart must first determine whether the Sentencing
Commission actually proscribed consideration of the proposed basis for departure. See
Koon, 518 U.S. at 109.
Thus, the unmistakable teaching of Koon is that only those factors on which
the Commission has forbidden reliance–e.g., drug or alcohol dependence or
abuse; race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, or socioeconomic status;
lack of youthful guidance or similar circumstances indicating a
disadvantaged upbringing; personal financial difficulties or economic
pressure on a trade or business–never may provide an appropriate basis for
departure. All others potentially may provide a basis for departure under
appropriate circumstances.
Brock, 108 F.3d at 34-35 (citations omitted) (overruling United States v. Van Dyke, 895
F.2d 984, 986-87 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 838 (1990)). Although addiction and
abuse are excluded from consideration as an appropriate basis for departure, this
-4-
prohibition does not expressly forbid consideration of post-offense drug rehabilitation
efforts. Therefore, rehabilitation may provide a basis for departure. See Brock, 108 F.3d
at 35.
Additionally, the correct inquiry for whether a potential basis for departure was
considered by the Sentencing Commission focuses on whether the potential basis is
addressed by the “guidelines, policy statements, or official commentary and whether it is
encompassed within the heartland of situations to which the guidelines were intended to
apply.” Brock, 108 F.3d at 33. Because rehabilitation efforts are taken into consideration
when determining a defendant’s eligibility for an acceptance of responsibility guideline
adjustment, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) commentary at n.1(g), post-offense rehabilitation can
only be an appropriate ground for downward departure if the efforts are of a magnitude
that the defendant’s situation cannot be considered typical of those where an acceptance
of responsibility adjustment is granted.1 See Koon, 518 U.S. at 93-96 (emphasizing that
before a court exercises its discretion to depart the defendant must establish the existence
of unique circumstances which remove the case from the “heartland” of the applicable
guideline, presenting a situation where departure is truly warranted); United States v.
Kapitzke, 130 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Sally, 116 F.3d 76, 79 (3d
Cir. 1997); Brock, 108 F.3d at 34; United States v. Barton, 76 F.3d 499, 504 (2d Cir.
The court granted Defendant a three-level adjustment for acceptance of
1
responsibility. See R., Vol. II at 354, 435.
-5-
1996); United States v. Williams, 948 F.2d 706, 710-11 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Sklar, 920 F.2d 107, 115-17 (1st Cir. 1990). A defendant’s efforts at drug rehabilitation
are to be evaluated by the same standards as a defendant’s efforts at any other form of
rehabilitation.
Because the district court’s decision was premised on our holding in Ziegler,
which has been effectively overruled by Koon,2 we REMAND to the district court to
determine whether Defendant is entitled to a downward departure from the sentence
applicable under the guidelines based on his efforts at drug rehabilitation. We have
reviewed Defendant’s other claims for relief and find them without merit.
REMANDED.
2
“[A] single panel is permitted to reconsider a previous Tenth Circuit decision to
the extent the new [Supreme Court] case law invalidates our previous analysis.” Hurd v.
Pittsburg State Univ., 109 F.3d 1540, 1542 (10th Cir. 1997).
-6-