10-3400 U.S. v. Runyan

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Family responsibilities

A downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5H1.6 can only be based on current, not past, caregiving responsibilities.

“Runyan’s caregiving claim here was so thin as not to require comment. He emphasizes the extent of his own sacrifice, but ‘[w]hen a defendant presents an argument for a lower sentence based on extraordinary family circumstances, the relevant inquiry is the effect of the defendant’s absence on his family members.’ United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746, 756 (7th Cir. 2008). See also United States v. Johnson, 964 F.2d 124, 129 (2d Cir. 1992) (‘The rationale for a downward departure here is not that [the defendant’s] family circumstances decrease her culpability, but that we are reluctant to wreak extraordinary destruction on dependents who rely solely on the defendant for their upbringing.’); U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 (family ties and responsibilities are ‘not ordinarily relevant’ in deciding whether to depart below a Guidelines sentence, but application notes authorize departures when the defendant’s sentence ‘will cause a substantial, direct, and specific loss of essential caretaking’). At the time Runyan was sentenced, he no longer was caring for ill family members, as the two fathers had died years earlier. His case is thus readily distinguishable from Schroeder, in which we vacated the sentence because the district court failed to consider and comment upon the defendant’s claim for leniency based on his ongoing role as caregiver for his daughter, whose compromised immune system made daycare an implausible childcare option. 536 F.3d at 756. Although ‘a sentencing court cannot summarily disregard a defendant’s potentially meritorious argument as it relates to extraordinary family circumstances,’ United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2010), Runyan’s argument was anything but potentially meritorious. His argument rested on past rather than present caregiving, and was thus doomed from the start; the district court need not have addressed it.”

Affirmed.

10-3400 U.S. v. Runyan

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Moody, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text