United States v. Patrick Lloyd Hofstad, No. 17-1278 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender,Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a downward departure under Guidelines Sec. 5H1.2 based on its determination that defendant's undisputed physical impairments were not so extraordinary and so unusual as to justify a departure.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1278 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Patrick Lloyd Hofstad lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: March 12, 2018 Filed: June 25, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patrick Hofstad was indicted for several drug offenses related to a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. During his pretrial confinement, Hofstad was brutally assaulted by another inmate. He suffered a skull fracture from the incident, and doctors inserted a metal plate and screws into his head to repair the damage. Hofstad subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. The district court1 then granted Hofstad’s motion for pre-sentencing release on the basis of his ongoing medical needs related to the attack. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (authorizing the release of detainees where “exceptional reasons” are clearly shown). At sentencing, Hofstad argued for a downward departure under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5H1.4, which allows courts to consider a defendant’s “extraordinary physical impairment” in fashioning a sentence. The district court denied the requested departure, concluding that Hofstad’s physical condition was not sufficiently “extraordinary” to warrant a lower sentence. The court did, however, vary downward from Hofstad’s advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months, sentencing him to 156 months’ imprisonment. Hofstad now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred in finding that his condition was not “extraordinary” in light of its earlier determination that his injuries were sufficiently “exceptional” to warrant his pre-sentencing release. “Under the advisory guidelines, we generally will not review the district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure unless the district court had an unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought that it was without authority to grant the departure.” United States v. Varner, 678 F.3d 653, 658 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hofstad identifies no unconstitutional motive, nor does the record betray any. Further, the district court expressly acknowledged its authority to grant a departure under § 5H1.4, but it chose not to do so because Hofstad’s undisputed physical impairments were not “so extraordinary and so unusual” as to justify a 1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. -2- departure. That determination fell within the district court’s discretion. See Varner, 678 F.3d at 659. Accordingly, Hofstad’s sentence is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
