United States v. Dailey, No. 19-2353 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to submitting false reimbursement claims for services and creating a materially false patient progress note. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by declining to depart downward under USSG 5H1.4 based on defendant's extraordinary physical impairment where he was diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma mycosis fungoides, a rare, chronic, and incurable cancer. The court explained that defendant's diagnosis no doubt confirms a very serious condition, but the government convinced the district court of the Bureau of Prison's ability to accommodate defendant's condition and provide appropriate medical care. The court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court was mistaken.
The court also held that the district court did not commit any other procedural errors where the district court referenced the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and discussed several of them. Furthermore, defendant's 27 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant at the very bottom of the applicable guideline range. The court agreed with the district court that the guidelines recommended a longer sentence for defendant because of his higher criminal history category, since he had previously committed another similar crime.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not commit clear error in rejecting defendant's request for a downward departure under Guidelines Sec. 5H1.4, which permits a departure based on an defendant's extraordinary physical impairment; this court could not say with a definite and firm conviction that the court erred in determining the Bureau of Prisons had the ability to accommodate defendant's condition and provide appropriate medical care; the record was sufficient to show the district court considered the 3553(a) factors in determining sentence, as well as the factors to be considered in deciding whether to depart under Sec. 5H1.4; sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range was not substantively unreasonable and did not create an unwarranted disparity with the sentences imposed on his co-defendants, given the fact that defendant had previously been convicted for a similar crime of health care fraud.
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.