and high blood pressure do not render his health so extraordinarily poor to allow the court to depart. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that physical condition is a factor that is “not ordinarily relevant” in determining whether the sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4; see also Iannone, 184 F.3d at 227 n. 10 (noting that physical condition is a discouraged basis for departure). “However, an extraordinary physical impairment may be a reason to impose a sentence below the applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4. If the Bureau of Prisons can adequately provide for a defendant’s health care needs, courts have been reluctant to grant departures on the basis of ill health. See, e.g., United States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d 340, 348-49 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Hernandez has not submitted any medical
holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that dismissal is not warranted where the plaintiff was unable to attend courtordered depositions because the military would not grant him leave time to comply with the courts orders holding no departure warranted for a defendant who suffered from coronary artery disease requiring ongoing medical care where there was no showing that his life would be shortened by virtue of incarceration or that the bureau of prisons would be unable to accommodate him holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands