United States v. John Dailey
958 F.3d 742
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- John Dailey, a podiatrist, pled guilty to Medicare reimbursement fraud and creating a false patient progress note, causing $492,608 in loss.
- PSR rated him offense level 17, Criminal History II, yielding a Guidelines range of 27–33 months; district court initially sentenced him to 27 months.
- Between plea and sentencing Dailey was diagnosed with cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma and sought a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 (extraordinary physical impairment) and a variance to permit home detention for specialized treatment.
- The government moved to remand for resentencing; at the remand hearing the BOP regional medical director testified BOP could provide necessary treatment; the district court again denied the departure/variance and imposed 27 months.
- Dailey appealed, arguing procedural error (clear‑error in finding no extraordinary impairment and inadequate explanation) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable given purported sentencing disparities; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred in declining a § 5H1.4 downward departure for Dailey's cancer | Dailey: diagnosis and need for specialized treatment make imprisonment an extraordinary hardship; home detention could continue care | Government: BOP can provide adequate treatment; district court reasonably found no extraordinary impairment | Court: No clear error; record (BOP testimony) supports district court's finding |
| Whether district court committed other procedural errors (misstated factual finding; inadequate explanation) | Dailey: court misstated that lesions "may become cancerous" and did not adequately explain denial | Government: court considered §3553(a) factors and relied on evidence; explanation sufficient | Court: No procedural error; explanation adequate when read with record |
| Whether the 27‑month within‑Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable (disparity claim) | Dailey: sentence longer than masterminds of scheme; disparity renders sentence unreasonable | Government: difference explained by Dailey's higher criminal history; within‑Guidelines presumption of reasonableness | Court: Sentence not substantively unreasonable; disparity justified by prior similar conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and procedural‑error framework for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requirements for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Coughlin, 500 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2007) (§ 5H1.4 and standards for extraordinary physical impairment departure)
- United States v. Robinson, 409 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2005) (reviewability of district court findings about extraordinary physical impairment)
- United States v. McCoy, 847 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 2017) (limits on reviewing denial of downward departures)
- United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2006) (review of district court's extraordinary‑impairment finding)
- United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2008) (clear‑error standard articulation)
- United States v. Sharkey, 895 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2018) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Davis‑Bey, 605 F.3d 479 (8th Cir. 2010) (criminal‑history differences can justify sentencing disparities)