Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-95-20202/USCOURTS-ca5-95-20202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-20202

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOHNATH JOSEPH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-678)

November 17, 1995

Before THORNBERRY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant, Johnath Joseph, appeals his resentencing by the 

district court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

Background

 *Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value 

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes 

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, 

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

Case: 95-20202 Document: 00515635544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/1995
2

Joseph was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by 

a felon and on August 24, 1990, was sentenced by the court to thirty 

years confinement, five years supervised release, and a $50.00 

mandatory special assessment. The conviction and sentence were 

affirmed. United States v. Joseph, 940 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Joseph filed a motion alleging his sentence should be corrected due 

to retroactive application of an amendment to the career offender 

guidelines, and urging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing 

to advise him of the applicable law and failing to object at 

sentencing to his enhancement as a career offender. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the district court followed the magistrate 

judge's recommendation and denied relief on one complaint of 

ineffective assistance, and granted the government's motion for 

summary judgment on the other.1 After receiving a supplemental 

presentence investigation report ("PSR") the district court granted 

relief on the guideline amendment and resentenced Joseph to 327 

months imprisonment, with the balance of the sentence remaining the 

same.

Discussion

Joseph first complains that he was not given adequate notice 

on resentencing of the district court's intent to upwardly depart 

from the applicable guideline range. The record reflects the 

 1 Joseph has not raised on appeal his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Case: 95-20202 Document: 00515635544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/1995
3

district court decided a departure was warranted because the 

criminal history category did not adequately reflect his violent 

past, and the likelihood was great that he would commit future 

violent crimes. The only objection raised to the upward departure 

was a "violation of the ex post facto clause since the Court did 

not consider these matters when it first sentenced him. It should 

now be limited by an earlier determination." This objection 

mentioned nothing about notice. Therefore, since this complaint 

was not raised in the district court, in order to prevail Joseph 

must show this court's failure to consider it would result in 

manifest injustice. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th 

Cir. 1991).

The district court may upwardly depart on a ground not 

identified as a reason for departure either in the PSR or otherwise 

if the parties are given reasonable notice as required by Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 32. United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722, 733 (5th 

Cir. 1991) (appeal following remand from en banc court). Here, in 

response to the government's written objections, the probation 

officer in an addendum to the Supplemental PSR, deferred to the 

district court on the matter of an upward departure. Although the 

specific grounds for upwardly departing were not given in the PSR 

addendum, this notation should have provided adequate notice that 

the district court could consider such a departure. Joseph has not 

shown how failure to consider this issue would result in manifest 

injustice.

Case: 95-20202 Document: 00515635544 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/1995
4

Joseph next complains that the district court erred because it 

failed to give acceptable reasons justifying its upward departure. 

Joseph argues that the reason given, namely that his criminal 

history was understated, was insufficient to justify the departure.

The district court must offer acceptable reasons for the 

departure. United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 

1993) (en banc). The record reveals that, after remarking on 

Joseph's extensive prior criminal record, the district court 

articulated the following reasons for its upward departure:

I conclude that given the seriousness of the Defendant's 

prior conduct that was not included in his Criminal 

History Category, and his long and violent criminal 

history, that there is a likelihood that he will commit 

future crimes and that a Criminal History Category of V 

inadequately accounts for both his past criminal history 

and the likelihood that he will commit future crimes, and 

I will depart upward[.]

Inadequacy of a defendant's criminal history category and the 

likelihood that he would commit other crimes are acceptable reasons 

for an upward departure. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. p.s.; United States 

v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court 

did not err in upwardly departing from the guideline range. 

Lambert, 984 F.2d at 663.

Finally, Joseph argues that the district committed "double 

counting" by increasing his base offense level by two levels for 

possessing a firearm in connection with a drug offense when the 

offense for which he was convicted already included such 

consideration. This complaint is foreclosed by United States 

Case: 95-20202 Document: 00515635544 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/17/1995
5

v.Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 1994) (no double jeopardy 

violation resulted when defendant assessed two-level increase under 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing firearm while manufacturing 

methamphetamine and sentenced for being felon in possession of 

firearm). Joseph does not dispute that the firearm he possessed 

was connected to the offense committed. The district court did not 

err by increasing his offense level after finding that he possessed 

the firearm during the commission of a drug offense.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 95-20202 Document: 00515635544 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/17/1995