[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
_____________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-11252 May 28, 2004
_____________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 02-80050-CR-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAMON AMEDEO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_____________________
(May 28, 2004)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and STAHL*, Circuit Judges.
STAHL, Circuit Judge:
*
Honorable Norman H. Stahl, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Defendant-appellant Damon Amedeo appeals from his sentence following a
guilty plea to one count of distribution of cocaine to a person under twenty-one
years of age, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 859(a). We hold that the district court
erred in upwardly departing from the Sentencing Guidelines, and remand for
further sentencing proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual history
Evidence presented at the sentencing hearing established the following: In
May, 2001, Amedeo met Douglas Rozelle III. At that time, Amedeo was a 29-
year-old attorney and Rozelle was an eighteen-year-old student. Rozelle’s father,
an attorney, had hired Amedeo to work at his law firm beginning the previous
month. After Rozelle's arrest for possession of marijuana and Xanax, Rozelle's
father arranged for Amedeo to represent his son. These charges resulted in
Rozelle's enrollment in a pretrial intervention program. Amedeo accompanied
Rozelle to his first drug treatment appointment, where the therapist informed
Amedeo that Rozelle had a “serious problem.”
Subsequently, Amedeo and Rozelle began spending a great deal of time
together. Rozelle’s father, aware of only some of the meetings, was reassured by
Amedeo that he would not allow young Rozelle to use drugs. Over the next
2
several months, however, Amedeo and Rozelle together used cocaine, marijuana,
and various pills. According to witnesses at the sentencing hearing, Rozelle often
used and distributed drugs in his college dorm, some of which were supplied by
Amedeo. Rozelle had independent sources as well. Several of Rozelle's friends,
all between the ages of nineteen and twenty-one, used marijuana with Amedeo and
Rozelle at Amedeo's apartment.
During the fall of 2001, Rozelle's parents, who were divorced, expressed
concern that their son was using drugs again. In particular, Rozelle's mother
suspected that Rozelle was drug-impaired when he and Amedeo visited her on
Thanksgiving. She told her ex-husband of her concerns, who in turn spoke to
Amedeo. Amedeo assured Rozelle's father than Rozelle was not using drugs. In
November, 2001, Rozelle was diagnosed with depression and was prescribed
Celexa.
In early January, 2002, Rozelle informed his father that he wanted nothing
further to do with Amedeo. Accordingly, Rozelle’s father asked Amedeo to cease
contact with Rozelle. Nonetheless, on January 5, 2002, Rozelle appeared at
Amedeo’s apartment after telling his mother he was going there to "appease"
Amedeo before a pretrial intervention meeting scheduled for that week. Two
friends of Amedeo, Charles Wilson and Anthony Costanzo, briefly were at the
3
apartment and testified that Rozelle was behaving erratically and appeared “pretty
wasted.” As they left Amedeo's apartment around 7:50 p.m., Amedeo said to them
that he "wanted to fuck [Rozelle]."
Sometime between 1:00 a.m and 7:00 a.m. the following morning, Rozelle
died of a drug overdose in Amedeo's apartment.
At around 10:15 a.m. on January 6, Amedeo left his apartment to meet
Wilson and Costanzo. Amedeo was in an agitated condition; he told them that he
and Rozelle had "partied hard" the night before and that Rozelle might be dead.
Amedeo also stated that he and Rozelle had had unprotected sex twice the
previous night and that Rozelle may have been asleep the second time.
After spending time at a restaurant and Wilson's residence, Amedeo,
Wilson, and Costanzo returned to Amedeo’s apartment at around 12:35 p.m. that
day. Amedeo and Costanzo cleaned up the apartment, hid drug paraphernalia and
took out the trash. However, Wilson testified that he does not recall any cleaning
taking place. Around 12:46, after attempting to wake Rozelle, Amedeo called
911. Paramedics and law enforcement arrived, and a preliminary investigation
into Rozelle’s death began.
That day, Detective Amy Sinnott arrived at Amedeo's apartment to
investigate Rozelle's death. Amedeo told Sinnott that he and Rozelle had sex,
4
after which Rozelle fell asleep in Amedeo’s bedroom. Later, Amedeo had anal
intercourse with Rozelle, during which Rozelle was breathing and may have said
Amedeo's name, but was "kind of out of it." At some point after 12:30, Amedeo
awoke to a wet spot in the bed. Concluding that Rozelle had urinated in the bed,
Amedeo tried unsuccessfully to wake him. Amedeo stated that he then moved
Rozelle to the floor and went to sleep in the other bedroom.
Amedeo consented in writing to a search of his apartment. In the master
bedroom, Sinnott found a cut straw containing white powder and a jar containing
marijuana. Licensed firearms were found locked in a case. Amedeo told Sinnott
that only he and Wilson were in the apartment when the body was found; he did
not reveal Costanzo's presence. Amedeo also did not reveal that Costanzo and
Wilson had visited the previous night, stating only that a law school friend had
stopped by in the afternoon. When Sinnott noted that there was no trash in the
apartment, Amedeo denied removing it before calling 911.
At some point after the police investigation began, Amedeo called Costanzo
and told him to say that he (Costanzo) was not in the apartment when Rozelle's
body was found.1 He also told Costanzo it was important to exaggerate the extent
1
The district court found that this was because Amedeo did not trust Costanzo as much as he
did his long-time friend Wilson.
5
of Amedeo's romantic relationship with Rozelle, to make the relationship sound
"that it was a little more than it really was."
On January 11, 2002, a federal search warrant was executed at Amedeo’s
apartment. Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seized six
firearms from the case discovered in the earlier search, as well as drugs and drug
paraphernalia. The search also yielded a videotape containing three segments.
The first segment was taped by Rozelle on the weekend of October 28, 2001, and
depicted a sexual encounter between Rozelle and a woman named Megan
Stepanek.2 The second segment was taped by Amedeo and showed him
performing oral sex on Rozelle, who appeared to be unconscious. The third
segment, also taped by Amedeo, showed him and Rozelle using drugs together on
or about November 11, 2001. They smoked marijuana and cocaine residue from a
bong and snorted powdered cocaine hydrochloride. It was the cocaine use
depicted in this segment that became the basis for Amedeo's offense of conviction.
The district court found that the second and third videotaped segments occurred on
the same night.
2
Stepanek was Rozelle's girlfriend at the time. She testified that she did not recall engaging
in the sex acts depicted on the videotape, and that at the time the tape was made, Rozelle had given
her an Ativan pill that he said belonged to Amedeo.
6
Detective Sinnott searched Rozelle's mother's home, where Rozelle had
been living. She found drug paraphernalia, three prescription bottles of Celexa,
Xanax, marijuana and Ativan.
The toxicology report stated that Rozelle's death was a result of drug
overdose, specifically, "polydrug toxicity" resulting from cocaine, methadone,
Citralopam (Celexa) and Alprazolam (Xanax). The medical examiner who
performed the autopsy testified that death resulted from the interaction of all four
drugs, which combined to suppress Rozelle's central nervous system to the extent
that his lungs filled with fluid and his heart and lungs stopped functioning.
A forensic toxicologist testified that there was no active cocaine in Rozelle's
system; rather, there was cocaine metabolite, which reflected cocaine use at least
twelve hours, and possibly up to several days, before his death. Neither the
cocaine nor the Xanax, standing alone, was sufficient to cause death. The
methadone and the Celexa individually were consumed at "toxic" levels.
Nonetheless, neither expert testified unequivocally that either drug was
independently fatal.3 The forensic toxicologist testified that a small quantity of
3
The medical examiner offered somewhat contradictory testimony as to whether the
methadone was present at a level that alone would have caused Rozelle's death.
7
Lorezepam (Ativan) was found in Rozelle's blood, which was "a little bit at the
low end of the therapeutic range" rather than in the "toxic" range.
Amedeo's semen was found in Rozelle's underwear. Additional semen was
found in Rozelle's anal canal, but its source could not be determined. There was
no tearing or scarring of Rozelle's anus or rectum. The testimony at the sentencing
hearing indicated that the lack of trauma could have resulted either from the
absence of sexual assault (i.e., the sex was consensual) or from the relaxing effects
of the drugs on Rozelle's body.
B. Procedural history
Amedeo was arrested on February 7, 2002. He was charged in a nine-count
superceding indictment alleging one count of unlawful drug use while in
possession of a firearm, 21 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3); one count of distribution of
cocaine to a minor, 21 U.S.C. § 859; one count of cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841; five counts of distribution of marijuana to a minor, 21 U.S.C. § 859; and
one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Amedeo and the government entered a plea agreement in which Amedeo agreed to
plead guilty to the count of distributing cocaine to a minor, 21 U.S.C. § 859(a),
and the government agreed to drop the remaining charges.
8
The procedural maneuvering leading up to the sentencing was unusually
complex. A Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) was issued, then repeatedly
revised. The government recommended a reduction to Amedeo's sentence based
on acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). It also requested
enhancements on two grounds: (1) that Amedeo had abused his position of trust as
Rozelle’s attorney, pursuant to § 3B1.3; and (2) that Rozelle was a “vulnerable
victim” because of his prior drug problems, pursuant to § 3A1.1. Lastly, the
government recommended an upward departure pursuant to § 5K2.0 on the ground
that Amedeo distributed drugs to multiple minors. Pursuant to Burns v. United
States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991), the district court twice issued notices of intent to
consider additional grounds for upward departure. The sentencing hearing took
place over four days and involved multiple witnesses.
On February 13, 2003, the district court sentenced Amedeo to 216 months
of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. It based this sentence on
an offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of I. The court increased the
sentence based on the abuse of trust and vulnerable victim grounds raised by the
government, and imposed an additional enhancement on the ground that Amedeo
obstructed justice by influencing witnesses, concealing evidence, and making false
statements, pursuant to § 3C1.1.
9
Furthermore, the court departed upward on several grounds: (1) that
Amedeo committed the offense to facilitate a sexual assault on Rozelle, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.9; (2) that Amedeo's offense resulted in death, pursuant to §
5K2.1; (3) that he engaged in extreme conduct by failing to seek medical help for
Rozelle and by having unprotected sex despite his illness with hepatitis C,
pursuant to § 5K2.8; and (4) that Amedeo distributed drugs to multiple minors,
pursuant to § 5K2.0.4 The district court denied Amedeo’s request for a reduction
based on acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a), citing Amedeo’s
continued assertions of a consensual sexual relationship.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable law: standard of review and relevant conduct
This case involves challenges to the length of Amedeo's sentence imposed
by the district court, pursuant both to enhancements and upward departures from
the Sentencing Guidelines.5 When appeal is taken from an enhancement, we
review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of the sentencing
4
The court noted that, had there been any error in its calculation as to the enhancements or
in applying §§ 5K2.0 or 5K2.8, the same offense level could have been reached by altering the extent
of the departures under §§ 5K2.1 and 5K2.9.
5
Adjustments and departures are "distinctly different concepts under the Guidelines.
Adjustments are changes to an offense level within the Guidelines. Departures, on the other hand,
are sentences imposed outside the Guidelines." United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 1097 (9th
Cir. 1991).
10
guidelines. United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531, 1536 (11th Cir. 1997).
Specifically, "[i]n the context of applying enhancements to specific offense
characteristics, this Court has held that our review is de novo." United States v.
Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court's factual
findings related to the imposition of sentencing enhancements, however, are
reviewed only for clear error. Id.
Our review of the district court's departures from the Guidelines is subject
to a slightly different standard. In 2003, Congress enacted the Prosecutorial
Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003
(PROTECT Act). Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 1, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). The PROTECT
Act altered the standard of review applied to most challenges to sentencing
departures. 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Under the Act, we review de novo the district
court's application of the Guidelines to facts in deciding whether a departure was
based on a factor that: (1) advanced the objectives of federal sentencing policy; (2)
was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) (detailing factors to be considered at
sentencing); and (3) was justified by the facts of the case. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(e);
United States v. Pressley, 345 F.3d 1205, 1209 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003). Otherwise,
we give "due deference" to the district court's application of the guidelines to the
facts. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(e). We also give "due regard to the opportunity of the
11
district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses," and we accept the court's
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.
We next address the district court's upward departures from the Guidelines
range. Before departing from the Guidelines, a district court must determine that
an aggravating factor exists that places the case outside of the Guidelines'
heartland. United States v. Melvin, 187 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 98 (1996)). Whether a case is sufficiently
unusual to fall outside of the heartland is determined largely by comparison with
other Guidelines cases. Id. "Because the district courts see so many Guidelines
cases, district courts have an institutional advantage over appellate courts in
determining whether a case is outside the heartland, and thus their decisions are
entitled to substantial deference." Id.
A court may depart on the basis of a factor enumerated in the Guidelines
unless the Guidelines already take the factor into account. Koon, 518 U.S. at 96.
If a factor is already taken into account by the applicable guideline, the court may
depart only if the factor is "present to an exceptional degree or in some other way
makes the case distinguishable from an ordinary case where the factor is present."
Id.
12
In this case, adjudicating the upward departures depends heavily on
determining which of Amedeo's conduct properly should be considered for
sentencing purposes. The district court was faced with the difficult task of
delineating the relevant conduct pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. That section
provides, in relevant part, that adjustments shall be determined on the basis of:
(1)(A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant;
****
(2) solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D1.2(d)
would require grouping of multiple counts, all acts and omissions
described in subdivisions (1)(A) and (1)(B) above that were part of
the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense
of conviction;6 (3) all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions
specified in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) above, and all harm that was
the object of such acts and omissions . . .
We review the district court's application of § 1B1.3(a) to the facts for clear error.
United States v. White, 335 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003).
Here, the district court found that the events depicted on the videotape in
early November, the events around Rozelle's death in January, and the acts that
took place "in between" all constituted a single "common scheme or plan," and
thus were relevant conduct within the meaning of § 1B1.3. These acts, it stated,
6
Amedeo's offense of conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 859, is an offense for which § 3D1.2(d)
requires grouping of multiple counts.
13
were linked by Amedeo's ongoing motive: to provide incapacitating drugs to
Rozelle for the purpose of taking sexual advantage of him.
In assessing whether conduct is relevant for purposes of § 1B1.3, we look to
the "similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity" between the offense of
conviction and the uncharged conduct. United States v. Maxwell, 34 F.3d 1006,
1011 (11th Cir. 1994). "[W]e must consider 'whether there are distinctive
similarities between the offense of conviction and the remote conduct that signal
that they are part of a single course of conduct rather than isolated, unrelated
events that happen only to be similar in kind.'" Id. (quoting United States v.
Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331, 1336 (7th Cir. 1993)). The commentary to § 1B1.3 of the
Guidelines provides: "[I]n a drug distribution case, quantities and types of drugs
not specified in the count of conviction are to be included in determining the
offense level if they were part of the same course of conduct or part of a common
scheme or plan as the count of conviction."
The Guidelines commentary makes clear, however, that § 1B1.3 is designed
to take account of "a pattern of misconduct that cannot readily be broken into
discrete, identifiable units that are meaningful for purposes of sentencing."
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt., background. Thus, "when illegal conduct does exist in
'discrete, identifiable units' apart from the offense of conviction, the Guidelines
14
anticipate a separate charge for such conduct." Maxwell, 34 F.3d at 1011 n.32
(quoting United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Other circuits have noted that a preference for separate
charges facilitates a more uniform application of the Guidelines and minimizes
constitutional concerns. See, e.g., Hahn, 960 F.2d at 909; United States v. Wood,
924 F.2d 399, 404 (1st Cir. 1991) ("The goal of the provision, we think, is for the
sentence to reflect accurately the seriousness of the crime charged, but not to
impose a penalty for the charged crime based on unrelated criminal activity.").
We begin with considering the occasions on which Amedeo provided illegal
drugs to Rozelle. See Maxwell, 34 F.3d at 1011 (in conviction for conspiracy to
distribute dilaudid, provision of different drugs to different individuals was not
relevant conduct); United States v. Lawrence, 915 F.2d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 1990)
(finding defendant's cocaine and marijuana sales were part of same course of
conduct where defendant had at least one common customer for both types of
drugs); United States v. Santiago, 906 F.2d 867, 872-73 (2d Cir. 1990) (same
course of conduct found where defendant sold drugs to same purchaser). First,
Costanzo testified that he observed Rozelle and Amedeo smoke marijuana
together on a half-dozen or fewer occasions. He stated that it appeared that
Amedeo had provided the marijuana on some occasions, and that Rozelle also had
15
brought marijuana "a couple of times." Costanzo further testified that he saw
Rozelle and Amedeo consume cocaine together once or twice, but that he did not
know who supplied it.
Costanzo's friend Wilson also observed Amedeo and Rozelle use marijuana
together; on both occasions, Rozelle provided the marijuana. Wilson did not
witness any cocaine use on Rozelle's part.
Several other witnesses, high school and college friends of Rozelle, said
they participated in or observed shared marijuana use that included Rozelle and
Amedeo. This drug use took place in the summer and fall of 2001. The testimony
collectively indicated that both Rozelle and Amedeo, at different times, provided
the marijuana. These friends did not have knowledge of Amedeo providing
Rozelle with cocaine. Their testimony also established that Rozelle extensively
used marijuana, cocaine, Xanax, and other pills in high school, before he met
Amedeo, and in the college dormitory outside of Amedeo's presence.
Rozelle's college roommate testified that Rozelle stayed at Amedeo's
apartment on weekends and often returned with marijuana and occasionally pills.
Another college friend testified that Rozelle had a couple of different sources for
pills, including Amedeo.
16
Megan Stepanek, Rozelle's girlfriend, testified that in late October she
smoked marijuana at Amedeo's apartment with Amedeo and Rozelle, and that both
men had supplied some of the drug. She also stated that Rozelle had given her an
Ativan pill that he said was Amedeo's, and that it made her lose her memory and
feel tired. Stepanek testified that Rozelle told her that sometimes he and Amedeo
used cocaine and ecstasy together. Moreover, on one occasion she saw Amedeo
give Rozelle money to buy marijuana.
Rozelle's mother testified that she suspected that Rozelle was "high" when
he and Amedeo visited her on Thanksgiving, and that she told her ex-husband of
her concerns. No specific drugs were referenced. One friend testified that he had
heard that Rozelle used cocaine around Thanksgiving, but did not link this use to
Amedeo.
Taking into account the applicable case law and the district court's findings,
we conclude that here, the relevant conduct is limited to those occasions on which
Amedeo provided pills and cocaine to Rozelle for the purpose of taking sexual
advantage of him.7 The district court found that circumstantial evidence
supporting this scheme included the testimony by one friend of Rozelle that
7
Whether the evidence established that Amedeo indeed did so is a question we address in
sections II(F-H), infra.
17
Rozelle had said that at unspecified times, Amedeo had given him unspecified
pills that had "knocked him out." The court also relied on Stepanek's testimony
that Rozelle told her that the Ativan he gave her several days earlier, on the
weekend of October 26-28, belonged to Amedeo. Thus, the court found, "the
evidence establishes that Mr. Amedeo fully understood that the combination of
these pills, Ativan, cocaine, ultimately had the effect of simply knocking the
recipient out . . .".
This common plan or scheme excludes most of the shared drug use, which
involved marijuana. The marijuana use took place with numerous different
individuals, and was not uniformly supplied by Amedeo. Rozelle often provided
the drug that he, Amedeo, and/or their friends smoked. More to the point, the
marijuana was not linked to what the district court deemed the motive behind
Amedeo's scheme: to take sexual advantage of Rozelle. The district court did not
find, and the record does not indicate, that Amedeo used marijuana to attempt to
incapacitate Rozelle.
Moreover, the marijuana distribution originally was charged separately in
the indictment in the form of five counts of distribution of marijuana to a minor,
21 U.S.C. § 859; these counts were dismissed as a part of Amedeo's plea bargain.
While we do not hold categorically that such separately charged conduct cannot be
18
deemed "relevant conduct" for sentencing purposes under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, it
does suggest, in these circumstances, that Amedeo's marijuana consumption with
minors was sufficiently distinct from the offense of conviction that it warranted a
separate charge. See Maxwell, 34 F.3d at 1011 n.32.
We now turn to the specific adjustments and departures that Amedeo
challenges.
B. Abuse of trust
Amedeo contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence two
levels for abuse of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The court stated that in the
event that this enhancement did not hold up on appeal, there was an "alternative
backup ground" for increasing the sentence: that the "factual scenario is so
extraordinary and unusual that . . . it clearly ought to be a legitimate basis for
departure," presumably under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0.8
Section 3B1.3 provides, in relevant part: "If the defendant abused a position
of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly
8
Section 5K2.0 permits upward departures "in the exceptional case in which there is present
a circumstance that the Commission has not identified in the guidelines but that nevertheless is
relevant to determining the appropriate sentence." At sentencing, the district court did not
specifically cite this provision, but its emphasis on the extraordinary nature of Amedeo's relationship
with Rozelle makes clear that § 5K2.0 is the relevant provision. Moreover, neither party disputes
that the district court intended to invoke this Guideline as an alternative holding.
19
facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels."
The application note to this provision states, "For this enhancement to apply, the
position of public or private trust must have contributed in some significant way to
facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense." We have interpreted
the Guideline's reference to "the offense" to mean the offense of conviction.
Barakat, 130 F.3d at 1455.
The district court determined that Amedeo used the "facade" of the attorney-
client relationship to conceal his drug use with Rozelle. It held that in light of
Rozelle's age and dependence, Rozelle's parents had a relationship of private trust
with Amedeo in addition to and apart from the attorney-client relationship
between Rozelle and Amedeo.
Amedeo argues that enhancement under this provision was not appropriate
because Amedeo's status as Rozelle's lawyer did not facilitate the drug crime
depicted on the video. Amedeo was merely one of several friends with whom
Rozelle shared drug use. Moreover, he argues, the trust at issue here was limited
to his attorney-client relationship with Rozelle. That relationship was not
breached, he contends, because he capably represented Rozelle in the proceedings
for which he had been retained.
20
This case does not bear easy application of the examples provided in the
commentary to the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 n.1. Amedeo's relationship
with Rozelle and his parents was qualitatively different, though certainly no less
troubling, than that of an attorney serving as guardian who embezzles his client's
funds. See id.
We need not decide this issue, however. Amedeo posed no timely challenge
to the district court's alternative finding, that Amedeo's conduct removed this
situation from the heartland of cases involving drug distribution to a minor. See
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. Accordingly, that argument is waived. Tallahassee Mem'l
Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435, 1446 n. 16 (11th Cir. 1987).9 We agree
that the circumstances of Amedeo's relationship with Rozelle and his family are
far removed from the typical drug distributer-customer profile. Extraordinary
facts include Amedeo's participation in and concealment of the same type of
criminal conduct for which he was retained to defend Rozelle; his intertwined
professional and social relationships with Rozelle and Rozelle's parents; and, not
least, the repeated misrepresentations to Rozelle's parents concerning Rozelle's
9
Amedeo does contest this point in his reply brief, to no avail. See Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l
Med. Ctr., 815 F.2d at 1446 n. 16 ("[A] party cannot argue an issue in its reply brief that was not
preserved in its initial brief.").
21
(and his own) substance abuse. We see no reason to disturb the district court's
alternative ruling, and we affirm the enhancement pursuant to § 5K2.0.
C. Vulnerable victim
The district court applied a two-level enhancement to Amedeo's sentence on
the ground that he knew or should have known that Rozelle was a vulnerable
victim, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). It found that Rozelle was predisposed
to accept incapacitating drugs, that Amedeo knew of this weakness, and that
Amedeo gave him such drugs to render him physically vulnerable to a
nonconsensual sexual encounter.
The district court's application of § 3A1.1 presents a mixed question of law
and fact, which we review de novo. United States v. Arguedas, 86 F.3d 1054,
1057 (11th Cir. 1996). "The district court's determination of a victim's
'vulnerability' is, however, essentially a factual finding to which we give due
deference." Id.
The commentary to § 3A1.1(b) provides that that subsection applies to
"offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows
or should have known of the victim's unusual vulnerability." It cites the examples
of a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or a
22
robbery case in which the defendant selected a disabled victim. U.S.S.G. §
3A1.1(b) cmt. n.2.
Applying due deference to the court's initial finding of Rozelle's
vulnerability, we agree that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion
that Rozelle's drug addiction rendered him unusually vulnerable to Amedeo's
supplying him cocaine. Cf. United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1095 (8th Cir.
2001) (applying § 3A1.1 where defendant encouraged and contributed to drug
addiction in Mann Act case); United States v. Bragg, 207 F.3d 394, 399 (7th Cir.
2000) (applying § 3A1.1 where defendant employer fraudulently recruited victims
from homeless shelter, where possibly they were seeking help with their drug
problems).10 Amedeo, by virtue of his representation of Rozelle in the drug-
related legal matters and his conversation with Rozelle's therapist (who informed
Amedeo that Rozelle had a “serious problem”), certainly was aware of this
10
We do not suggest that every drug addict is a vulnerable victim within the meaning of §
3A1.1. See United States v. Pavao, 948 F.2d 74, 78 (1st Cir. 1991), and cases cited. Applying this
enhancement is highly fact-specific and must take into account the totality of the circumstances.
United States v. Frank, 247 F.3d 1257, 1260 (11th Cir. 2001). In this case, the unusual and
disturbing nature of Amedeo's relationship with Rozelle – encompassing both legal representation
on drug charges and illegal drug use – removes this case from the ordinary. Cf. Pavao, 948 F.2d at
78-79 ("individual facts about [the victim] . . . combined with those of the crime" supported
vulnerable victim finding).
23
predisposition.11 Accordingly, we affirm this sentence enhancement, albeit on
somewhat different grounds than the district court.
D. Obstruction of Justice
Next, Amedeo challenges the district court's imposition of a two-level
upward adjustment for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We
recently explained the different levels of deference accorded a district court's
application of this enhancement. United States v. Banks, 347 F.3d 1266, 1268-69
(11th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Williams, 340 F.3d 1231, 1240-41 (11th
Cir. 2003)). Where the district court must make a particularized assessment of the
credibility or demeanor of the defendant, we accord special deference to the
district court's credibility determinations, and we review for clear error. Id. at
1269, and cases cited. "Conversely, where the defendant's credibility or demeanor
is not at issue, and the defendant's conduct can be clearly set forth in detailed,
non-conclusory findings, we review de novo the district court's application of the
enhancement." Id. The latter standard of review applies to this case.
11
For the reasons discussed in section II(F), infra, we do not base our holding on the district
court's determination that Amedeo deliberately rendered Rozelle vulnerable to sexual assault by
administering drugs. The sentencing enhancement pursuant to § 3A1.1 can be affirmed solely on
the basis of the district court's other findings.
24
Section 3C1.1 provides, in relevant part, that an upward adjustment of two
levels is appropriate where the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or
attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of
the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction.
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The obstructive conduct must relate to (i) the defendant's
offense of conviction and any relevant conduct or (ii) a closely related offense. Id.
Potentially relevant examples of obstructive conduct include:
(a) threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a . .
. witness . . . directly or indirectly, or attempting to do so;
****
(d) destroying or concealing or directing or procuring another person
to destroy or conceal evidence that is material to an official
investigation or judicial proceeding (e.g., shredding a document or
destroying ledgers upon learning that an official investigation has
commenced or is about to commence), or attempting to do so;
****
(g) providing a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer
that significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation or
prosecution of the instant offense. . . .
Id. at cmt. 4.
The district court found that after Amedeo understood that Rozelle had died,
he "set into motion a well thought out plan to obstruct justice in this case." In its
findings, it pointed to the following pieces of evidence: First, Amedeo
misinformed the police that he was in a romantic relationship with Rozelle, and he
25
requested that Costanzo lie to support this claim if interviewed by the police.
Second, when Costanzo, Wilson, and Amedeo returned to Amedeo's apartment,
they "sanitized" it by washing cocaine from the counter, removing trash, and
hiding drug paraphernalia. Third, Amedeo lied, and asked Costanzo to lie, about
Costanzo's presence in the apartment. Fourth, Amedeo lied to the police about
whether the trash had been collected and thrown away. The district court also
found that the effort to obstruct justice continued through the sentencing hearing,
in that Amedeo stuck to his story about being in a consensual sexual relationship
with Rozelle in order to "cover up and negate" the seriousness of the crime.12
As an initial matter, we consider whether any of the incidents described
supra are of the nature of obstruction of justice as set forth in § 3C1.1. At a
minimum, it appears that Amedeo's urging Costanzo to lie about his presence in
the apartment and misrepresent his relationship with Rozelle to the police could be
12
Later in the sentencing hearing, the district court appeared to focus solely on Amedeo's
misrepresentations to Officer Sinnott. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. 4(g). We are skeptical that these
statements suffice to ground the enhancement in light of the requirement that a district court must
explain how a misrepresentation significantly obstructed or impeded the investigation or prosecution
of the offense. United States v. Uscinski, --- F.3d ----, (NO. 03-11377), 2004 WL 1066605, at *2
(11th Cir. May 12, 2004). Although here the district court expressly found that Amedeo's
misrepresentations "did, in fact, obstruct the investigation," it did not explain how they did so. Nor
is the obstruction apparent from the record. See id. Accordingly, we decline to base Amedeo's
enhancement on his misrepresentations to Sinnott. We may affirm the enhancement on other
grounds revealed by the record, however. See Powers v. United States, 996 F.2d 1121, 1123-24
(11th Cir. 1993).
26
deemed an unlawful attempt to "unlawfully influenc[e]" a witness within the
meaning of § 3C1.1, cmt. 4(a).13 While the Guidelines commentary does not
define "unlawful influence," our cases have applied this provision under
reasonably comparable circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Rudisill, 187
F.3d 1260, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 1999) (defendant encouraged co-defendant and
potential witness to flee from law enforcement authorities); United States v.
Garcia, 13 F.3d 1464, 1471 (11th Cir. 1994) (defendant asked witness not to
speak with FBI).
Amedeo contends that the conduct that the district court deemed obstructive
took place after Rozelle's death and before the videotape was discovered. He
contends that there is no evidence that he obstructed the investigation of the
instant offense of conviction, i.e. the distribution of the line of cocaine to Rozelle,
because that investigation did not begin until after the discovery of the videotape
several days later. In other words, he contends that the investigation into Rozelle's
death should be treated as distinct from the investigation of drug use that ensued
after the videotape was discovered and that led to his conviction.14
13
Accordingly, we need not reach the question of whether the other conduct referenced by
the district court constituted obstruction of justice.
14
The court explicitly declined to take a position on the question of whether application of
§ 3C1.1 is appropriate where the defendant's acts of obstruction take place at a time that precedes
an official investigation, but "[w]hen a defendant understands that a police investigation is about to
27
The factual record does not pinpoint the timing of Amedeo's relevant
statements to Costanzo, other than that they occurred after January 6. Even if
these statements did precede the discovery of the videotape, we think that under
the factual circumstances presented here, the distinction between investigations is
artificial and inapt. Apposite cases from other circuits demonstrate that conduct
occurring before a formal investigation into the offense of conviction may support
a § 3C1.1 enhancement if it foreseeably relates to that offense. In United States v.
Norman, 129 F.3d 1393 (10th Cir. 1997), the defendant caused a car accident, and
while awaiting the police, attempted to conceal drugs. Id. at 1396. Eventually he
was convicted of drug and firearms offenses, and argued against the application of
§ 3C1.1 on the ground that "the only investigation he anticipated was an unrelated
investigation of the car accident." Id. at 1399. The court disagreed, holding that a
car accident investigation routinely involves inquiries into whether either driver
was "under the influence" and assessment of cars' locations and conditions, as well
as possible inventorying of cars' contents. Id. It concluded that the defendant's
actions were "sufficiently related to the offense for which he was ultimately
convicted." Id.
be implemented."
28
The Eighth Circuit upheld a § 3C1.1 adjustment under similar
circumstances. United States v. Dortch, 923 F.2d 629 (8th Cir. 1991). In Dortch,
the defendant threw cocaine out of the passenger window after being stopped for a
traffic offense. Id. at 631. The court rejected his argument that the offense under
investigation at the time of his conduct was merely a traffic violation, not a drug
offense, noting that "[t]he offense of conviction may or may not be the offense
which initially attracted the attention of the police." Id. at 632, and cases cited.
See also United States v. Gacnik, 50 F.3d 848, 852 (10th Cir. 1995) (criticizing
Dortch holding as too broad, but acknowledging that § 3C1.1 enhancement is
appropriate where conduct relied upon to support enhancement relates to crime of
conviction).
Similarly, the initial matter investigated related directly and foreseeably to
the offense of conviction in this case. Detective Sinnott searched Amedeo's
apartment and interviewed him in the context of investigating the cause of
Rozelle's death. It was reasonably foreseeable that such an investigation would
encompass illegal drug use, especially because Sinnott almost immediately
discovered evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the apartment. Moreover,
given that Rozelle died in Amedeo's apartment, it is logical that the investigation
into the death would encompass the relationship between the two men and the
29
presence of any other potential witnesses. Surely someone with Amedeo's
experience as a criminal defense attorney would foresee the scope of the
investigation into Rozelle's death. Indeed, Amedeo's instructions to Costanzo
indicate that Amedeo anticipated the very direction of the investigation.
Accordingly, we conclude that the enhancement pursuant to § 3C1.1 was proper.
E. Acceptance of Responsibility
Next, Amedeo contends that the district court erroneously deprived him of a
three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. §
3E1.1(a) provides: "If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of
responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels." Moreover,
the offense level may be decreased by an additional level
if the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the
offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is
level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that
the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or
prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of
his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the
government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the
government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently . . .
Id. at § 3B1.1(b).
We review the district court's determination of acceptance of responsibility
only for clear error. United States v. Dodd, 111 F.3d 867, 870 (11th Cir. 1997).
30
"A district court's determination that a defendant is not entitled to acceptance of
responsibility will not be set aside unless the facts in the record clearly establish
that a defendant has accepted personal responsibility." United States v. Sawyer,
180 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999).
The Guidelines provide, "Conduct resulting in an enhancement under §
3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice) ordinarily indicates
that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct."
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.4; see also Arguedas, 86 F.3d at 1059-60 (adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility not appropriate where defendant repeatedly made
materially false statements to authorities and district court, resulting in
enhancement for obstruction of justice). In light of our affirmance of the
enhancement for obstruction of justice, Amedeo would be entitled to an
acceptance of responsibility adjustment only if this were an extraordinary case. Id.
at § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4.
The district court explicitly found that this case was not exceptional as
compared to other cases involving obstruction of justice, and denied Amedeo's
motion for a downward adjustment. It noted that the misrepresentations
concerning Amedeo's relationship with Rozelle were "thoughtfully conceived and
31
. . . purposefully implemented, so much so that I find it has continued right up
until the time of sentencing."
In light of these findings and our standard of review, we find no basis for
upsetting the district court's decision on this point. We affirm the denial of a
downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
F. Facilitating commission of another offense
The first basis on which the district court upwardly departed was the fact
that the offense of conviction was committed to facilitate a sexual assault on
Rozelle, pursuant to U.S.S.G § 5K2.9. That section provides, "If the defendant
committed the offense in order to facilitate or conceal the commission of another
offense, the court may increase the sentence above the guideline range to reflect
the actual seriousness of the defendant's conduct." Amedeo contests the court's
ten-level upward departure.
The district court found that Amedeo gave Rozelle Ativan in combination
with cocaine in order to "knock [him] out" so as to "achiev[e] the end goal of
having a nonconsensual sexual encounter," and that this happened at least twice:
on the date of the offense of conviction, and several weeks later at the time of
Rozelle's death.15 More specifically, the court found that the offense of
15
As discussed infra, the court based its departure solely on the November events.
32
conviction, on November 11, 2001, "was, in fact, committed for the purpose of
facilitating . . . a crime of sexual assault . . . I am prepared to make this finding
beyond a reasonable doubt, and I do so because this is reflected on the tape that is
in evidence, and there is no question as to what is shown on that tape."
We affirm the court's finding that the sexual encounter depicted on the
videotape was not consensual. Rozelle appears to be unconscious, and Amedeo's
conduct during that video segment indicates an intention to keep Rozelle unaware
of the sexual activity. Even if, as Amedeo insists, he and Rozelle had a romantic
relationship, this does not preclude an unlawful assault if one party was
unconscious and unable to consent. Accordingly, we affirm the finding that
Amedeo sexually assaulted Rozelle in the videotaped encounter.
The district court clearly erred, however, in concluding that the offense of
conviction was committed to facilitate the sexual assault. This conclusion rests
heavily on the district court's finding that the second and third segments of the
videotape – that is, the oral sex and the marijuana and cocaine use – occurred on
the same evening. This finding does not appear to be supported by the evidence.
First, in the segment depicting the sexual assault, Amedeo and Rozelle are wearing
different clothes than in the segment depicting the drug use, indicating that these
events took place at different times. In the sexual assault segment, Rozelle and
33
Amedeo are wearing jeans. In the drug-use segment, Rozelle is wearing shorts
and a T-shirt, and Amedeo is wearing shorts and a tank top. If, as the district court
found, Amedeo gave Rozelle drugs in order to "knock him out," it seems highly
implausible that Rozelle would have changed his clothes – or that Amedeo would
have put him, while unconscious, into different clothes – prior to the assault.
Second, nothing on the videotape itself, i.e. a counter or a time/date stamp,
establishes or even suggests the temporal proximity that the court found as fact.
The date of the offense of conviction, November 11, 2001, was established by
Amedeo's verbal remarks during the drug-use segment. There is no verbal or other
indication of the time or date of the preceding segment.
Indeed, the sequence of the videotape segments indicates that the sexual
encounter occurred before the cocaine use that underlies the conviction.
Moreover, there was no evidence that any Ativan, Xanax or other pills were used
at the time of the videotaped encounter, much less that Amedeo gave them to
Rozelle to facilitate the sexual assault.
In evaluating this evidence, as the government urges, we take into
consideration the events of January 5-6. The January evidence as to Amedeo's
sexual contact with an unconscious Rozelle, coupled with his statements to his
friends before and after Rozelle's death, supports the finding that Amedeo sexually
34
assaulted Rozelle in November. It does not, however, overcome the lack of
evidence tying the November sexual assault to the provision of pills and cocaine.
The district court held as a matter of law that a § 5K2.9 upward departure
can be premised only on the offense of conviction, not on relevant conduct. Thus,
its departure pursuant to this section was based solely on its findings that the
cocaine distribution depicted on the videotape occurring on or about November 11
was to facilitate the sexual assault also shown on the videotape. The government
contends that relevant conduct also may be the basis for application of § 5K2.9.
Accordingly, it argues, we alternatively could sustain the upward departure on the
district court's findings that Amedeo used cocaine and Ativan to render Rozelle
unconscious so as to sexually assault him on January 5-6.
Whether a departure under § 5K2.1 can be premised on relevant conduct is a
legal question for which we have little guidance. We need not resolve it, however,
because our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to find that Amedeo
used cocaine and Ativan to sexually assault Rozelle in November precludes a
"common plan or scheme" that would encompass the January events. Without an
anchor to the offense of conviction, the government is left only with distinct,
unrelated conduct for which separate charges should have been brought.
Accordingly, we do not consider Amedeo's conduct on January 5-6 -- even if did
35
involve distributing cocaine and Ativan for the purpose of committing another
offense -- to be relevant within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
G. Resulting death
Amedeo also argues that the district court erred in applying a four-level
upward departure on the ground that the offense of conviction resulted in death
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1. That section provides, "If death resulted, the court
may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range."16 It goes on to
explain, in relevant part:
Loss of life does not automatically suggest a sentence at or near the
statutory maximum. The sentencing judge must give consideration to
matters that would normally distinguish among levels of homicide,
such as the defendant's state of mind and the degree of planning or
preparation. Other appropriate factors are whether multiple deaths
resulted, and the means by which life was taken. The extent of the
increase should depend on the dangerousness of the defendant's
conduct, the extent to which death or serious injury was intended or
knowingly risked, and the extent to which the offense level for the
offense of conviction, as determined by the other Chapter Two
guidelines, already reflects the risk of personal injury.
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1.
16
At oral argument, the government alternatively contended that even if section 5K2.1 does
not apply, Rozelle's death was "resulting harm" and hence should be taken into account for
sentencing purposes under the relevant conduct provisions. See § 1B1.3(a)(1)(3)(sentencing shall
include consideration of "all harm that resulted from" relevant conduct). This argument was not set
forth in the government's brief, and hence is not preserved. See Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. of
Georgia v. Fulton County, 242 F.3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001). In any event, our holding as to
the limitations on relevant conduct in this case precludes the government's position.
36
Rozelle's death in January did not directly result, of course, from the
conduct involved in the offense of conviction, which took place two full months
earlier. The district court swept Rozelle's death into the ambit of Amedeo's
sentence by invoking the relevant conduct provisions at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(2). See
United States v. Purchess, 107 F.3d 1261, 1271 (7th Cir. 1997) ("an upward
departure under section 5K2.1 may be based on harm resulting from relevant
conduct as opposed to conduct comprising the offense of conviction"), and cases
cited. The court found that Amedeo supplied Ativan and cocaine to Rozelle that
"contributed substantially" to Rozelle's death on January 5-6. Hence, it concluded
that death resulted from Amedeo's relevant conduct, which was the common
scheme or plan to provide pills and cocaine to take sexual advantage of Rozelle.
For the reasons discussed supra, section II(F), we cannot affirm the
conclusion that Rozelle's conduct on January 5-6 involved a "same course of
conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." Accordingly,
the relevant conduct doctrine does not permit Amedeo's sentence to encompass the
events of January 5-6. We do not suggest that Amedeo could not be criminally
liable had he faced separate charges in connection with Rozelle's death. We
simply hold that Amedeo's offense of conviction did not encompass Rozelle's
death for sentencing purposes.
37
H. Upward departure under § 5K2.0: multiple minors
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, a district court may upwardly depart if the
case is atypical. Such departures are "reserved for 'unusual' cases where there is
something atypical about the defendant or the circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crime which significantly differ from the normal or 'heartland'
conduct in the commission of the crime." United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 911
F.2d 542, 549 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Williams, 891 F.2d 962,
964 (1st Cir. 1989)).
The district court departed on the ground that Amedeo had engaged in drug
use with multiple minors. Specifically, it found: "In addition to making his home
available to Mr. Rozelle, Mr. Amedeo made his home available to other young
adults, that is people between the age of 18 and 21, to whom he distributed drugs,
illegal drugs." It then concluded that a two-level departure was justified based on
"the number of people involved, the age of the people, the timing, the ready
accessibility of the drugs and so on."
Here, we begin our analysis by examining § 2D1.2, the guideline applicable
to Amedeo's offense of conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 859. The base offense level is
determined by the quantity of drugs distributed; it is enhanced if the drug was
distributed to an underaged person. It does not, however, take into consideration
38
the number of underaged victims. Accordingly, the relevant guideline does not
take into account at least some of the circumstances upon which the district court
based its conclusion.17
For the reasons explained supra, we hold that the marijuana smoking with
minors other than Rozelle was not relevant conduct and thus should not be
incorporated into Amedeo's sentence. None of the minors at issue here consumed
cocaine, the drug that formed the offense of conviction. As discussed supra, the
characteristics of the marijuana use with Rozelle's friends differed materially from
the cocaine use that Rozelle and Amedeo engaged in, and it appears that it was the
basis for a separate count in the indictment.
I. Upward departure under § 5K2.8: extreme conduct
Amedeo also contests the district court's one-level upward departure for
"extreme conduct," in this case Amedeo's unprotected sexual contact with Rozelle
during his treatment for hepatitis C.18
17
Even if a factor, such as age, is already taken into account by the applicable guideline, the
court still may depart if the factor is "present to an exceptional degree or in some other way makes
the case distinguishable from an ordinary case where the factor is present." Koon, 518 U.S. at 96.
The district court did not make specific findings or otherwise indicate it was enhancing Amedeo's
sentence on this basis, however. It simply stated, "I find in this case that the distribution of drugs
to people under the age of 21 is not a factor considered by the guidelines."
18
At sentencing, the district court also applied § 5K2.8 based on Amedeo's failure to call
emergency services after Rozelle was unconscious. Amedeo does not appeal from this departure.
39
Section 5K2.8 allows upward departure "[i]f the defendant's conduct was
unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim." We have affirmed
use of this enhancement where an HIV-infected adult defendant engaged in
numerous sex acts with a fifteen-year-old. United States v. Blas, 360 F.3d 1268,
1273-74 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirming departure on the basis of both §§ 5K2.8 and
5K2.0).
In this case, however, we have held that Amedeo's sexual encounters with
Rozelle on January 5-6 are beyond the relevant scope of conduct for sentencing
purposes. Hence, the enhancement cannot apply.
One final note: At sentencing, the district court stated that even if it erred in
its calculations as to any of the enhancements or the departures pursuant to §§
5K2.0 or 5K2.8, the same offense level could have been reached by applying
departures under §§ 5K2.1 and 5K2.9. Since we vacate the upward departures that
were applied pursuant to §§ 5K2.1 and 5K2.9, those provisions cannot provide an
alternative basis for the sentence. The district court therefore must recalculate the
sentence in accord with this opinion.
III. CONCLUSION
This is a difficult case, both in its legal complexity and its tragic factual
setting. It is clear the district court conducted the sentencing proceedings with the
40
utmost care and sensitivity to the parties, and grappled rigorously and
conscientiously with the challenging issues presented. Our opinion today vacates
the upward departures premised on the defendant's conduct that fell beyond the
appropriate scope of sentencing, but is not intended to condone or minimize that
conduct.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
41