United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Mark Kevin Gentry, Cross-Appellee
925 F.2d 186 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A downward departure from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is only permissible for circumstances not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. A departure based on a defendant's reduced mental capacity under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 requires the court to make specific findings that the defendant suffered from a 'significantly reduced mental capacity' which 'contributed to the commission of the offense,' and the extent of any departure must be explicitly justified.
Facts:
- Kevin Mark Gentry was an employee at a mall.
- On May 2, 1989, Gentry told his co-workers and mall security that he had bitten into a pin while eating M&M candy purchased from a vending machine.
- One of Gentry's fellow employees found a piece of metal embedded in the candy.
- Sheriff's deputies investigated and, finding the claim dubious, asked Gentry to take a polygraph test.
- Gentry agreed to the polygraph test.
- After the polygraph examiner concluded Gentry was lying and turned off the machine, Gentry confessed that he had placed the pin in the candy himself to get attention.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Gentry in federal district court for communicating a false report of food tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1).
- Gentry was convicted.
- The applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines prescribed a sentencing range of 21-27 months.
- The district court judge departed downward from the guidelines and sentenced Gentry to 12 months' imprisonment.
- Gentry appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The United States filed a cross-appeal, challenging the district court's downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court err in granting a downward departure from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines by finding a crime 'atypical' and citing the defendant's mental condition, without making the specific factual findings required by the guidelines to support the departure?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A district court errs when it departs downward from the Sentencing Guidelines without adequate justification. The court found two reasons given for the departure—that the case was atypical and that Gentry had reduced mental capacity—to be insufficient. The court reasoned that Gentry's crime (a false report without extortion or injury) was the norm contemplated by the guideline's base offense level, not an 'atypical' case warranting departure. Furthermore, for a departure based on reduced mental capacity under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, the district court failed to make the required findings as to whether Gentry suffered from 'significantly reduced mental capacity,' whether that condition 'contributed to the commission of the offense,' and whether the offense was 'non-violent.' Finally, the court held that the substantial degree of the departure—cutting the sentence in half—also required an explicit justification linked to the structure of the guidelines, which was absent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the binding nature of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and curtails the discretionary power of district court judges. It clarifies that a departure is not a tool to be used simply because a judge finds a standard sentence harsh; there must be a specific, articulable reason based on factors the Sentencing Commission did not adequately consider. The ruling mandates that for policy-statement-driven departures, such as for reduced mental capacity, courts must rigorously follow the prescribed analytical steps and make explicit, on-the-record findings. This promotes national uniformity in sentencing by requiring judges to justify not only the decision to depart but also the extent of the departure.
