In a stunning upset for the Government, the Third Circuit has taken a sympathetic position on “family circumstances” departures. Isabel Dominguez was facing a 37 month sentence for structuring bank deposits in fictitious accounts solely as an accommodation to a bank customer. At sentence her counsel argued that she did not deserve jail time based on her “extraordinary family circumstances.” The judge agreed, but said his hands were tied and denied the defendant’s motion.
Ms. Dominguez had elderly parents who could hardly care for themselves and could only function with the help of their daughter. Her father was mentally and physically infirm and her mother was also ill. The judge called the case “tragic,” but said he was helpless to change the sentence based on his understanding of the holding in United States vs. Sweeting, 213 F. 3d 95 (3d Cir. 2000).
Sweeting was a case where the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a reduction in sentence to a defendant who had five children, one of whom was suffering from a neurological disorder. Courts and attorneys who read the opinion said that “family circumstances” reductions were now a thing of the past, at least in the Third Circuit, an impression with which the U.S. Attorney’s office could not have disagreed. If Mrs. Sweeting, facing a ten year sentence, could not get a reduction as a parent of five children, who could?
But Sweeting was being read too broadly. The circumstances surrounding the case were not all that extraordinary. Mrs. Sweeting was no stranger to the criminal justice system and was in court on her second narcotics offense. As it turned out, her “neurologically impaired” child was a star football player and the captain of his team, a selection that reflected his superior skill as well as his popularity with his teammates. So he was hardly maladjusted. The child required a healthy diet, sufficient sleep, and vigorous exercise. There was also no indication that someone else would not be able to care for the children. Sweeting was a case where a parent was going to jail and a family was going to suffer, the natural consequence in similar cases: unfortunate but not extra-ordinary.
In contrast, Isabel Dominguez was a first time offender, convicted of structuring money, and had gained nothing from her crime. She lived with her parents, who were both physically and financially dependant upon her. As the opinion pointed out, “Her father had undergone brain surgery and had suffered a heart attack in 1998. He is non-ambulatory, obese, incontinent, has significantly impaired mental ability, and experiences difficulty speaking. [Isabel’s] mother has severe arthritis and heart problems which prevented her from physically caring for her husband (e.g., she cannot lift the amount of weight necessary to assist him), and, although she is seventy-five years old, is now forced to work to support him.”
So the Court of Appeals welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight and issued a written opinion stating that, “The sentence imposed will be vacated and the matter remanded to the District Court for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.” The court also noted that the case was “precedential,” meaning that it could be sited in a future “family circumstance” reduction. The Court went so far as to say that the Guidelines “do not require a judge to leave compassion and common sense at the door to the courtroom.”