United States of America v. Louis P. Corradi, Iii

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
NO. 01-2261
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LOUIS P. CORRADI, III,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 99-cr-00658)
District Judge: Honorable John C. Lifland
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2002
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and MAGILL*, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 12, 2002)
____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
____________
____________________
*Honorable Frank J. Magill, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Louis P. Corradi III appeals the District Court’s denial of a downward departure
based on his susceptibility to abuse while in prison, as well as its denial of a departure
based upon his extraordinary family ties and circumstances.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3231. We have jurisdiction
to review the final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Furthermore, we
have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3742(a)(1), (2), because this ruling involved a
determination by the District Court as to whether the facts were such that a departure was
called for under the guidelines. We will review the District Court’s ruling for an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Jacobs, 167 F.3d 792, 798 (3d Cir. 1999).
The District Court assessed Corradi’s physical characteristics: Corradi is
apparently of slight build, weighing 160 pounds, and is 5’5" tall. He pled guilty to
possession of visual depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. While
Corradi contended that he was immature and behaves in a way that "exudes vulnerability
and inexperience," the District Court, who had the opportunity to observe Corradi, did not
find that the circumstances warranted a departure. The court stated: "I don’t find that
Mr. Corradi is particularly vulnerable to abuse in prison, and it is certainly not present to

-- 1 of 2 --

such an extreme that his confinement would be much more severe than the norm."
This type of departure has been held to be justified only in extraordinary
circumstances. See United States v. Wilke, 156 F.3d 749, 753-4 (7th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Drew, 131 F.3d 1269, 1271 (8th Cir. 1997). It is clear to us that the District
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a departure on these grounds.
We find Corradi’s argument with respect to the departure based on family
circumstances to be similarly flawed. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the
District Court determined that the facts were not outside the "heartland." Even though
Corradi contended that he had "been a help" to his parents by taking them to their medical
appointments, and had also helped with the shopping, and some housekeeping, this was
not "a strong type showing." The District Court viewed his evidence as "a little vague,
both as to what I will refer to as quality and quantity." The court noted that this was not a
case like United States v. Gaskill, 991 F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1993), in which the defendant’s
parents were ill and essentially unable to do anything for themselves.
The District Court even granted Corradi additional time to provide a more
complete record but found that even the additional submissions did not present what was
necessary. Specifically, the District Court noted:
What is required is a showing that efforts to secure
other caretakers were made, that other caretakers were
unavailable, that the taxis and social services agencies that are
available to transport people in need of medical services to the
providers are not available. Unquestionably, it is preferable
for Mr. Corradi’s mother to have him perform all these
services, simply because he is her son. But that isn’t that is
not the standard, as to whether it is preferable. The standard
is far stricter. And I don’t find that [the investigator’s report]
meets the standard.
Accordingly, I will not depart downward based upon the
extraordinary family circumstance arguments that have been made.
The District Court applied the proper principles and the relevant law regarding the
"extraordinary" circumstances required. Only where the family circumstances are truly
extraordinary should this exception be permitted. United States v. Sweeting, 213 F.3d 95,
100-101 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 531 U.S. 95 (2000). The District Court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the downward departure requested.
Accordingly, we will affirm the Judgment and Commitment Order of the District
Court.
____________________ TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing memorandum opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --