U.S. v. Williams, 89-1134

• Decision Date: 22 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-1134,89-1134
• Citation: 895 F.2d 435
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Amanda Dishner WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 435

895 F.2d 435

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Amanda Dishner WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 89-1134.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 14, 1989.

Decided Jan. 22, 1990.

Susan Felicia Spence, Springfield, Mo., for appellant.

Richard Monroe, Springfield, Mo., for appellee.

Before BOWMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Amanda Dishner Williams appeals from a three-year prison sentence imposed upon her by the District Court ¹ after she pleaded guilty to using a communication facility in the commission of a drug offense, a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(b) (1982). The maximum statutory penalty for this offense is forty-eight months. Williams complains that the three-year sentence exceeds the sentencing range of the applicable sentencing guideline. We have jurisdiction in this Sentencing Guidelines appeal under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a)(3)(A) (Supp. V 1987).

After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found that an upward departure from the Guidelines was justified by Williams's significant involvement in the underlying drug offense, which was the manufacture and distribution of amphetamine, and by the substantial quantity of amphetamine she and her codefendants manufactured and sold. Williams claims this upward departure was not warranted. We affirm.

The base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines for Williams's conviction is twelve. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Sec. 2D1.6(a) (Nov.1989). After a one-point upward adjustment for criminal livelihood, in order to meet the minimum required by U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.3, and a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a), the District Court determined that Williams's total offense level is eleven. Since Williams has no prior criminal convictions, the sentencing table recommends eight to fourteen months of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge's upward departure from the recommended Guidelines sentence because of Williams's extensive involvement in two separate amphetamine-producing drug labs and her participation in the distribution of the drugs was proper.

In the District Court's written Report of Statement of Reasons for Imposing Sentence, the court found that, in the latter part of 1987, Williams leased property in Arkansas for the purpose of operating a drug laboratory. There were approximately four cooking sessions conducted on this property, each producing four to five pounds of amphetamine. Williams kept house, cooked meals, and ran errands for the individuals working in the lab and was paid for her services with a percentage of the manufactured drugs, a portion of which she distributed. The court found that Williams participated in the weighing and packaging of the amphetamine. The court further found that, after the Arkansas lab closed, Williams purchased property in Missouri in order to operate a second drug lab. There were approximately four cooking sessions at the Missouri property while Williams was present, each producing four to five pounds of amphetamine. Williams again helped to weigh and package the product and was paid for her services with a percentage of the amphetamine. In delineating the circumstances justifying an upward departure, the District Court recognized that Williams was heavily involved in the manufacture and distribution of amphetamine, and that one codefendant received a sentence of fifteen years and another thirteen years.

Williams does not challenge any of the factual findings of the District Court as clearly erroneous. Instead, Williams contends that, because the guideline under which she was sentenced does not make the quantity of drugs involved in the underlying offense a factor in determining sentence, her extensive involvement in a large drug-manufacturing operation is an invalid justification for an upward departure from the guideline sentencing range. We disagree.

A court may depart from the guideline range if the judge finds "that there 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. Sec. 3553(b) (1988). The Guidelines make it clear that the sentencing judge has considerable discretion in determining which circumstances to take into account in departing from the Guidelines.

Circumstances that may warrant departure from the guidelines pursuant to this provision cannot, by their very nature, be comprehensively listed and analyzed in advance. The controlling decision as to whether and to what extent departure is warranted can only be...