United States v. Jose Natalio Martinez-Guerrero

Jose Natalio Martinez-Guerrero is legally blind. 1 He pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). At his sentencing hearing, he asked the court to depart downward from the low end of the applicable guideline range of 27-33 months. He contended that his blindness was an “extraordinary physical impairment” for which a downward departure was authorized by Sentencing Guideline § 5H1.4.

The district court determined that the Bureau of Prisons could accommodate blind prisoners such as Martinez-Guerrero, and for that reason found that he did not suffer from an “extraordinary physical impairment” which would permit the court to depart downward. Concluding that it had *620 no discretion under the guidelines to depart downward, the court imposed a prison sentence of 27 months. Martinez-Guerrero appeals. We affirm.

JURISDICTION

The government argues we. lack jurisdiction to review Martinez-Guerrero’s sentence because the district court exercised its discretion when it refused to depart downward. See United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir.1990). We reject this argument because the…

concurring:

I join the majority opinion in its conclusions 1) that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether Martinez-Guerrero suffered from an extraordinary physical impairment within the meaning of guidelines section 5H1.4, and 2) that the sentence should be affirmed because Martinez-Guerrero failed to meet his burden for justifying downward departure on the basis of his potential for becoming blind in prison. I write separately to highlight the breadth of the appropriate inquiry under section 5H1.4 and the narrowness of our decision in this case.

As the majority opinion indicates, the district court applied the wrong legal standard by limiting its inquiry concerning extraordinary physical impairment under section 5H1.4 to whether the Bureau of Prisons can accommodate a defendant’s impairment. Instead,, a district court properly engages in a two-step analysis, the first of which is to make a factual finding as to whether a defendant’s physical and mental disabilities constitute an extraordinary physical impairment under section 5H1.4. If the district court finds that an extraordinary physical impairment exists, it then exercises its discretion…

987 F.2d 618 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Natalio MARTINEZ-GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50118. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 11, 1992 * . Decided March 4, 1993. Janice R. Mazur, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellant. David P. Curnow, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before FERGUSON, CANBY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Jose Natalio Martinez-Guerrero is legally blind. 1 He pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). At his sentencing hearing, he asked the court to depart downward from the low end of the applicable guideline range of 27-33 months. He contended that his blindness was an "extraordinary physical impairment" for which a downward departure was authorized by Sentencing Guideline § 5H1.4. 2 The district court determined that the Bureau of Prisons could accommodate blind prisoners such as Martinez-Guerrero, and for that reason found that he did not suffer from…