## Facts

- John Thompson pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base on February 11, 1997, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- The offense arose from a joint federal-state investigation into crack trafficking at the Bromley-Heath Housing Development in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.
- At the original sentencing, Thompson was 24 years old, had never been incarcerated, and had a limited record including one assault-and-battery conviction.
- He left high school after his girlfriend became pregnant and maintained steady employment to support his partner and child until his arrest.
- While incarcerated, Thompson was described as a model inmate who took available courses and pursued self-improvement.
- In the first sentencing decision, the district court departed downward from a guideline range of 77 months to 60 months based on “extraordinary family circumstances” under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6.
- The court of appeals vacated the sentence, ruling that the district court used an improper comparator group for judging whether family circumstances were “extraordinary,” and remanded for resentencing.

## Issues

1. Under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 and the appellate mandate, how should a court determine whether family ties and responsibilities are “extraordinary,” including the proper comparator group?
2. Applying the correct standard, whether Thompson’s family circumstances justified a downward departure, and if so, to what extent.

## Decision

- The district court, on remand, again found Thompson’s family circumstances “extraordinary” within the meaning of § 5H1.6 and granted a downward departure.
- The court revised its analysis to comply with the appellate instruction that the comparison must be to “all defendants,” not to a narrow offense-based subgroup.
- The court reasoned that the departure was justified by the unusually severe impact that incarceration would have on innocent dependents, not as a reward for otherwise commendable conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Family ties and responsibilities under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 are generally a discouraged ground for departure, permitted only in exceptional cases.
- “Extraordinary” family circumstances must be assessed against an appropriate baseline; the relevant comparison is to the population of federal defendants generally, not merely similarly charged offenders.
- The departure inquiry centers on atypical harm to innocent third parties from incarceration that exceeds the ordinary collateral consequences anticipated by the Guidelines.
- A sentencing court may use comparative methods, including review of presentence information, to distinguish ordinary from extraordinary family circumstances, provided the method aligns with controlling appellate standards.
- On remand, a district court must implement the appellate mandate while still making individualized sentencing findings consistent with the Guidelines’ departure framework.

## Conclusion

The court resentenced Thompson in compliance with the appellate directive on how to measure “extraordinary” family circumstances and nonetheless concluded that the likely hardship to his dependents was sufficiently exceptional, relative to federal defendants as a whole, to warrant a renewed § 5H1.6 downward departure.


United States v. Thompson, 190 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D. Mass. 2002)