itself, neither atypical nor unusual, even when both parents faced incarceration. Id. at 72. In concluding that these circumstances were not extraordinary, we noted that “[the defendant’s mother] would care for the child while his parents were imprisoned.” Id. Similarly, in United States v. Rybicki, 96 F.3d 754 (4th Cir.1996), the district court granted the defendant a five-level downward departure, in part because of his extraordinary family responsibilities. Id. at 756. According to the district court, the departure was warranted, in part, because the defendant had a neurologically impaired nine-year old son who was in need of special supervision, and a wife who was experiencing fragile mental health. Id. at 758. In reversing the departure, the Fourth Circuit held that th t Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Goff, 20 F.3d 918, 921 (8th
holding that trial court did not err in finding that wife was at least somewhat capable of supporting herself where evidence of wifes depression and other mental health problems was uncontested but where other evidence showed that these conditions did not totally bind her to the family home and that wife had been financially successful in the past holding that defendant who had been married for ten years was the main breadwinner for wife and two children and did chores for wifes grandmother did not have unusual family circumstances holding that the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals  one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger holding that a wife with a child from a prior relationship was not entitled to use and possession of the family home holding that trial court did not err in imputing income to wife for purposes of child support based on the continued monthly payment of wifes living expenses by wifes mother