Opinion
No. 03-40029-01-SAC
April 30, 2004
RULING ON DOWNWARD DEPARTURE MOTION
The case comes before the court on the defendant's motion for a downward departure. (Dk. 41). It is the defendant's burden to prove he is entitled to a downward departure. United States v. Archuleta, 128 F.3d 1446, 1449 (10th Cir. 1997). A district court may depart from the applicable guideline range if "the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b).
The defendant's alleged reasons for assuming a false identity do not rise to the level of serious duress or coercion as to warrant a downward departure. As for the defendant's other legitimate businesses and lawful dealings while using the false identify, these mitigating circumstances are not of such a kind or degree that the court would consider them sufficient grounds for a downward departure. Finally, the defendant's points to the family relationships she sacrificed because of the false identity and to the family relationships that will be harmed if she is incarcerated. This factor is not present to an exceptional degree or is so different from the ordinary case where the family relationships are present. In sum, the court does not view any of the argued factors as either being so exceptional or supported by persuasive evidence as to justify taking the defendant's case outside of the heartland and to warrant a downward departure. Nor is this one of those extremely rare cases where the different factors uniquely combine to warrant a departure. For these reasons, the court denies the defendant's request for a downward departure, but it does find that these circumstances warrant a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's motion for downward departure (Dk. 41) is denied.