U.S. v. Ringis

• Decision Date: 16 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. CR 99-4005-MWB.,No. CR 98-3016-MWB.,No. CR 99-4007-MWB.,No. CR 99-4001-MWB.,CR 98-3016-MWB.,CR 99-4001-MWB.,CR 99-4005-MWB.,CR 99-4007-MWB.
• Citation: 78 F.Supp.2d 905
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John Joseph RINGIS, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Carlos Valdivia-Cardona, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. John Herman Buckendahl, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph John Johnson, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

78 F.Supp.2d 905

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John Joseph RINGIS, Defendant.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Carlos Valdivia-Cardona, Defendant.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. John Herman Buckendahl, Defendant.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph John Johnson, Defendant.

No. CR 98-3016-MWB.

No. CR 99-4001-MWB.

No. CR 99-4005-MWB.

No. CR 99-4007-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

December 16, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard Murphy, Peter Deegan, Kevin Fletcher, Assistant United States Atty's, for U.S.

Jana Miner, Assistant Federal Defender, Sioux City, IA, for Ringis, Buckendahl, and Valdivia-Cardona, defendants.

R. Scott Rhinehart, Curtis Wiberg, Richard Rhinehart & Associates, Sioux City, IA, for Johnson, defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DOWNWARD DEPARTURE

BENNETT, District Judge.

                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 908
                     A. Procedural Background .................................................... 908
                     B. Factual Background ....................................................... 910
                        1. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8 and its application in the federal districts .... 910
                        2. Situation of the individual defendants ................................ 911
                           a. Joseph John Johnson ................................................ 912
                           b. John Joseph Ringis ................................................. 913
                           c. Juan Carlos Valdivia-Cardona ....................................... 914
                           d. John Herman Buckendahl ............................................. 915
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 917
                     A. Departure From The Sentencing Guidelines ................................. 917
                        1. Discretion ............................................................ 917
                        2. Authority v. discretion ............................................... 918
                        3. Analytical process .................................................... 920
                     B. Authority To Depart ...................................................... 921
                        1. A feature that potentially takes the case "outside the `heartland'" ... 921
                        2. Treatment of the feature under the Guidelines ......................... 923
                           a. Does U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8 consider the feature? ................... 923
                

                           b. Is the feature considered or unmentioned? .......................... 926
                        3. Sufficiency of the feature to take the case out of the heartland ...... 926
                           a. Disparities arising from prosecutorial discretion .................. 926
                           b. The panel decision in Banuelos-Rodriguez ........................... 928
                           c. The Jones decision ................................................. 929
                           d. Conflict with the structure and theory of the guidelines ........... 931
                                i. Conflict with the "substantial assistance" guideline .......... 931
                               ii. Conflict with the "safety valve" guideline .................... 933
                              iii. Conflict with the guidelines as a whole ....................... 934
                        4. Prejudice to the defendants ........................................... 935
                           a. The conundrums when § 1B1.8 protection is denied .............. 936
                           b. Non-cooperators .................................................... 936
                                i. Johnson's prejudice ........................................... 936
                               ii. Ringis's prejudice ............................................ 939
                              iii. Valdivia-Cardona's prejudice .................................. 940
                           c. The cooperating defendant .......................................... 941
                III. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 943
                

This decision addresses what the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has described as an "anomalous byproduct of the Sentencing Guidelines," the transfer of "discretion once held by judges to the government." See United States v. Jones, 160 F.3d 473, 483 (8th Cir.1998). The specific question before the court is the following: Can disparities between this federal district and the vast majority of other districts in the availability of use immunity within the scope of United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.8 protection, as a result of the policy or practice of the respective United States Attorney's Offices, provide a basis for downward departure in sentencing of defendants pleading guilty in the district in which denial of use immunity is the policy or practice?

The question is presented by four defendants in separate cases, each involving slightly different situations: one of the defendants pleaded guilty without a plea agreement upon denial of his request for a plea agreement affording him some § 1B1.8 protection; two of the defendants pleaded guilty pursuant to plea agreements that provided them with no § 1B1.8 protection, but did not require their cooperation; and one defendant provided detailed disclosures pursuant to a plea agreement that provided him with no § 1B1.8 protection. The first three defendants assert that the lack of § 1B1.8 protection deprived them of the opportunity to make disclosures or provide cooperation that would have reduced their sentences, while the fourth asserts that his disclosures actually increased his sentence. All four assert that these consequences would not have been imposed upon them had they sought plea agreements in the Southern District of Iowa, or almost any other federal district, rather than the Northern District of Iowa, because the United States Attorney's Offices in the overwhelming majority of federal districts routinely grant cooperating defendants use immunity within the scope of § 1B1.8 protection, while the United States Attorney's Office for this District does not. The disparity between this and other districts in the availability of § 1B1.8 protection, they contend, takes their cases out of the "heartland" of the Guidelines, warranting a downward departure in each of their sentences.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

The rather complicated procedure these four separate cases have pursued to this point began on July 23, 1999, when the court sua sponte continued the sentencing of defendant Johnson in Case No. CR 99-4007-MWB to obtain further briefing from the parties on the question of the availability of a reduction or downward departure based on the government's application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8.¹ On July 30, 1999, Johnson filed a brief on the availability of such a ground for downward departure pursuant to the court's oral order at the July 23, 1999, sentencing hearing. By written order dated August 2, 1999, the court set a deadline of September 7, 1999, for further briefing on the availability of a downward departure and scheduled a hearing on October 7, 1999, for the completion of Johnson's sentencing. The court also invited the Federal Defender to submit a brief as amicus curiae. The government filed a resistance to downward departure in Johnson's case on August 6, 1999, and a more fully developed brief on September 7, 1999. The October 7, 1999, hearing was continued, and on October 21, 1999, the Federal Defender belatedly filed an amicus curiae brief in Johnson's case. The government filed a supplemental memorandum regarding Johnson's motion for downward departure on October 26, 1999.

Defendants Ringis, Valdivia-Cardona, and Buckendahl, all of whom are represented by the Federal Defender's Office, notified the court in late October that they would also be seeking downward departures in their sentences on grounds similar to those asserted by Johnson.² On October 27 and 28, the defendants in all four cases moved for a consolidated hearing on their motions for downward departure. Over the government's objections, the court agreed that a consolidated hearing would be appropriate and therefore held such a hearing on November 12, 1999.³ At the consolidated hearing, the court heard evidence and arguments on the court's authority to make a downward departure on the ground asserted.

Following the consolidated hearing, the court came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to take all evidence pertaining to the sentence for each individual defendant before the court could determine whether it has the authority to make the requested downward departure, as well as whether such a downward departure is appropriate, in each individual's case. However, the court also concluded that such evidentiary hearings should be set in close proximity to each other, in part to facilitate a consolidated appeal, if any, of the sentences by either the defendants or the government. Therefore, the court conducted individual sentencing hearings for defendants Johnson, Ringis, and Buckendahl on November 22, 1999.⁴ The sentencing hearing for defendant Valdivia-Cardona, also originally scheduled for November 22, 1999, was continued, because the presentence investigation report in his case had not yet been completed. Defendant Valdivia-Cardona's individual sentencing hearing was eventually held on December 8, 1999.⁵

In the same order setting separate sentencing hearings, the court also scheduled the completion of the individual sentencing hearings and imposition of sentence in each individual's case for December 20, 1999. The present opinion memorializes the court's disposition of each defendant's motion for downward departure.

B. Factual Background

The court will begin its discussion of the factual background to the present motions for downward departure with a reprise of some of the evidence presented at the consolidated hearing. That evidence was proffered on the question of the court's authority, as a general matter, to make a downward...