U.S. v. Taylor, 88-3677
| Decision Date | 06 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3677,88-3677 |
| Citation | 868 F.2d 125 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Theodor A. Schirmer, Baton Rouge, La., for defendant-appellant.
Edward Gonzales, Asst. U.S. Atty. and P. Raymond Lamonica, U.S. Atty., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and DUHE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Taylor challenges his sentence pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which led to a five-year prison term for conspiracy to distribute LSD. 1 Although the record does not indicate that appellant's counsel suggested any of the challenges which he now raises to the trial court, in the interest of justice and because they involve matters of law under a novel and potentially complex scheme, we will address them. We conclude, however, that Taylor has not raised a substantial challenge to his sentence, and we therefore affirm the sentence.
Taylor first contends that the district court incorrectly applied the Guidelines and should have instead sentenced outside the Guidelines because there were two "mitigating circumstances 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 [in the Guidelines]." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b). The mitigating circumstances are Taylor's full cooperation with the government and his longstanding history of heroin and cocaine addiction. As to the former concern, the Sentencing Guidelines provide a specific procedure by which the government can move for consideration of a defendant's cooperation as a mitigating circumstance. Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 5, Part K--Departures, Section 5K1.1. It is thus incorrect to say that the Guidelines do not address cooperation. More to the point in this case, however, the government did recognize Taylor's cooperative attitude by charging him with a single-count conspiracy offense rather than with additional offenses, as the government and trial court observed during the sentencing colloquy. As the trial court put it, Taylor received his bargain on the charging end of this case in exchange for his cooperation. There is no basis for asserting that the trial court's failure to grant further leniency by departing from the Guidelines was either authorized or an abuse of discretion.
Taylor also contends that his lengthy history of drug addiction should qualify as a mitigating circumstance. He contends that addiction is not adequately covered in the Guidelines, and the sentencing court therefore should have gone outside the Guidelines to address this condition. This is incorrect. The Guidelines address drug use as a possible mitigating factor in Secs. 5H1.4 and 5K2.13 (diminished capacity). Although Sec. 5H1.4 is a policy statement that drug use should not ordinarily influence sentencing determinations, it indicates two things. First, the Sentencing Commission did consider drug and alcohol abuse as it was statutorily required to do. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(d)(5). Second, the Commission properly recognized that, "Substance abuse is highly correlated to a propensity to commit crime." Sentencing deviations based on this characteristic should be handed down with extreme reluctance. In any event, because Taylor did not raise this issue at the trial court, the pertinent facts of his addiction were not aired, and more important, the court was unable to make a record regarding any possible departure, as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b).
Taylor next contends that the Guidelines are inapplicable, and sentencing should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Marshall
...Cir.1990); United States v. Elrod, 898 F.2d 60 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Bishop, 894 F.2d 981 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Taylor, 868 F.2d 125 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Marshall, 706 F.Supp. 650, 653 (C.D.Ill.1989). These courts rely primarily on the 1986 amendments to Se......
-
Chapman v. United States
...denied, 498 U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2622, 110 L.Ed.2d 643 (1990); United States v. Rose, 881 F.2d 386 (CA7 1989); United States v. Taylor, 868 F.2d 125, 127-128 (CA5 1989). 4. Petitioner points to the views of some members of Congress that the use of the phrase "mixture or substance containing......
-
U.S. v. La Guardia
...by the Sentencing Commission") provides no such recourse. See United States v. Bruno, 897 F.2d at 695; United States v. Taylor, 868 F.2d 125, 126 (5th Cir.1989). We agree in general that, under ordinary circumstances, where the guidelines themselves adequately consider certain factors, depa......
-
US v. Pirnat, Crim. No. 1:82cr0311.
...498 U.S. 836, 111 S.Ct. 106, 112 L.Ed.2d 77 (1990); United States v. Rose, 881 F.2d 386, 388-89 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Taylor, 868 F.2d 125, 127-28 (5th Cir. 1989). The courts' approach often led to disparate sentences based not on the amount of actual LSD involved, but on the wei......