finding the court's downward departure based on the defendants' being "barred from future work in" their chosen occupations to be an abuse of discretion: "Although cognizant of the deference owed to the District Court, we must conclude it is not unusual for a public official who is convicted of using his governmental authority to violate a person's rights to lose his or her job and to be barred from future work in that field." (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- finding the court's downward departure based on the defendants' being "barred from future work in" their chosen occupations to be an abuse of discretion: "Although cognizant of the deference owed to the District Court, we must conclude it is not unusual for a public official who is convicted of using his governmental authority to violate a person's rights to lose his or her job and to be barred from future work in that field." (emphasis added)
- stating that sentences imposed pursuant to § 3742 were to be reviewed for abuse of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 No. 09-50912 c/w No. 09-51009 discretion
- finding an abuse of discretion in the district court’s reliance upon Koon’s career loss because "it is not unusual for a pub- lic official who is convicted of using his governmental authority to violate a person’s rights to lose his or her job and to be barred from future work in that field"
- stating that, if a factor is not mentioned in the Guidelines, the court must consider the "structure and theory of relevant individual Guidelines and the Guidelines as a whole" and "decide whether the factor is sufficiently unusual to take the case out of the Guideline’s heartland”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in United States v. Imran Mandhai — not on the Supreme Court's list
Redland Soccer Club v. Dep't of the Army, 55 F.3d 827, 845 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) ("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an. error of law.”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Thurston, 358 F.3d 51, 70 (1st Cir. 2004).
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitJul 2, 200412 citing opinionsby statuteother groundsunconfirmed confidenceRead it
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Arnell Dion Davis, A/K/A Flip, 380 F.3d 183 (2004)
Category one of Koon is inapplicable here.
Distinguished by Crim v. King, 65 F. App'x 591 (2003)
The only case cited by Crim, United, States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 n. 25 (9th Cir.1994), vacated in part on other grounds by Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996), is inapposite.
Distinguished by In Re Sealed Case No. 97-3112, 181 F.3d 128 (1999)
Our general skepticism aside, we reject the defendant’s proposed application of Koon to section 5K1.1 for two specific reasons.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In my opinion the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it relied on the unusual collateral employment consequences faced by these petitioners as a result of their convictions. I therefore except Part IV-B-1 from my otherwise complete endorsement of the Court’s opinion. I also note that I do not understand the opinion to foreclose the District Court from basing a downward departure on an aggregation of factors each of which might in itself be insufficient to justify a departure.