Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06323/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Henry Bernhardt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNI.TED STATES · COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appe&lA Tenth circuit 

JUN 11 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6323 

DONALD HENRY BERNHARDT, 

Defendant-Appellant._ 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-89-148-R) 

Susan M. Otto, Assistant Federal Public Defender (William P. 

Earley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on the brief), Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Robert E. Mydans, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western 

District of Oklahoma (Timothy D. Leonard, United States Attorney, 

and Leslie M. Kaestner, Assistant United States Attorney, on the 

brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before McKAY, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

This case involves a challenge to the district court's upward 

departure from the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 1 
I. Facts 

On .January 12, 1988, defendant deposited a forged check into 

his commercial bank account. As a result of defendant's withdrawals on this account, the bank lost $21,106.28. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement, defendant pled guilty to bank fraud in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 1344. 

Defendant's crime is covered by the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, defendant had 

twenty-five criminal history points for a criminal history category of VI. Defendant's offense level was eight, resulting in a 

sentencing range of eighteen to twenty-four months. United States 

Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5A (Nov. 1989). The 

district court determined that the Sentencing.Guidelines did not 

adequately take into account defendant's long criminal history. 

Therefore, the district court departed from the guideline range of 

eighteen to twenty-four months and imposed the statutory maximum 

sentence of five years imprisonment. Defendant now appeals that 

departure. 

II. Procedures for the Review of Guideline Departures 

United States v. White, 893 F.2d 276 (10th Cir. 1990), outlines the procedures to be followed in this circuit when reviewing 

a sentencing guideline departure. 

In the first step, we determine whether the circumstances cited by the district court justify a departure 

from the Guidelines .... In the second step, we review 

any underlying factual determinations made by the district court. Our standard of review in the first step 

is plenary. See 18 u.s.c. § 3553(b). In the second 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 2 
step, we review all factual determinations under -the 

clearly erroneous standard. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 

The third and final step in our inquiry is a review 

of the district court's degree of departure from the 

Guidelines .... (W]e vacate a sentence outside the 

Guidelines if it is unreasonable. 

White, 893 F.2d at 277-78. 

III. Review of Departure 

A. Circumstances Cited by the District Court 

The district court justified its departure in two different 

places in the record. At the sentencing hearing the court stated 

that: 

I will make the record that I am satisfied that I have 

complied with 18 United States Code Section 3553, which 

requires that I consider the nature and circumstances of 

the offense and your history and characteristics. And 

I'm satisfied that the sentence I am imposing reflects 

the seriousness of the offense and will promote respect 

for the law and provides for just punishment and adequate defenses for the pr?tection of the public. 

I'm satisfied that you're a career criminal .. [Y]ou have been before Court's [sic] ... [t]welve 

different times . 

. • . [T]here comes a point where we just have to 

protect society and no[t] worry about the individual. 

I don't think your criminal history is adequately 

reflected in the guidelines. And I'm going to depart 

upwards in your case. 

It clearly doesn't take into consideration the fact 

that you are a career criminal. And that you have spent 

a lifetime defrauding people. 

And as I said, I think society has a right to be 

protected from people like you. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 3 
Record, vol. 3, at 17-18. 

In the district court's Statement of Reasons For Imposing 

Sentence filed September 19, 1989, the court again gave a brief 

description of its reasons for departing from the guidelines. 

The Court finds that the following [aggravating or mitigating] circumstance exists that is of a kind or to a 

degree not adequately taken into consider~tion by the 

Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines and 

that this circumstance should result in a sentence different from that described by the guidelines: The criminal history does not adequately reflect the seriousness 

of his past criminal conduct. The Sentencing Commission 

did not consider a criminal history of an individual as 

extensive as the defendant's when formulating the guidelines. 

Record, vol. 1, doc. 14 at 2. 

Thus, the district court adequately explained why departure 

was appropriate in this case. The district court found that the 

defendant's criminal history was not adequately reflected by the 

sentence range provided in the guidelines. The Sentencing Commission actually provided for departure in cases precisely like this 

case. 

If reliable information indicates that the criminal 

history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's past criminal conduct or the 

likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, 

the court may consider imposing a sentence departing 

from the otherwise applicable guideline range. 

A departure under this provision is warranted when 

the criminal history category significantly under-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit 

further crimes .... The court may, after a review of 

all the relevant information, conclude that the defendant's criminal history was significantly more serious 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 4 
than that of most defendants in the same criminal history category, and therefore consider an upward departure from the guidelines . 

• . . The Commission contemplates that there may, 

on occasion, be a case of an egregious, se~ious criminal 

record in which even the guideline range for a Category 

VI criminal history is not adequate to reflect the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history. In such a 

case, a decision above the guideline range for a defendant with a Category VI criminal history may be warranted. 

u.s.s.G. § 4Al.3, p.s. 

Although the Sentencing Commission explained that departures 

above criminal history category VI would only be occasional, we 

conclude that the district court's stated reasons for departure 

fit squarely within the Sentencing Commission's explicit comment 

that those reasons are appropriate grounds for departure. Cf. 

White, 893 F.2d at 280. Defendant's twenty-five criminal history 

points were substantially higher than the thirteen points needed 

to fall within criminal history category VI. Moreover, several of 

defendant's previous convictions were not counted in arriving at 

the twenty-five points. The district court repeatedly referred to 

defendant as a ''career criminal,tt Although the district court was 

obviously not referring to the career criminal provisions of the 

guidelines, which require a prior violent crime or controlled substance offense, the district court was clearly aware that defendant had spent a lifetime in crime. In fact, the district court 

noted that defendant's crimes nearly all involved defrauding 

people, and that defendant's current offense involved defrauding a 

bank. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 5 
The Sentencing Commission did not give any detail? as to what 

facts would justify a finding that category VI does not adequately 

reflect defendant's criminal history. Nevertheless, we believe 

that the district court's explanation is sufficient to fall within 

the Sentencing Commission's policy statement. Thus, we hold that 

the district court's justification for departure is explicitly 

authorized by the Sentencing Commission. 

B. The District Court's Factual Determinations 

We next review the district court's factual determinations 

under the clearly erroneous standard. Their is no dispute in this 

case that defendant has a lengthy criminal record. Thus, we conclude that the record amply supports the district court's factual 

determinations upon which it based its upward departure. 

C. Reasonableness 

Because we hold that the departure in this case was justified 

and based on adequate factual findings, we must now determine 

whether the departure was reasonable. Aside from its acknowledgment that five years is the statutory maximum, the district court 

did not explain why it chose five years as the sentence in this 

case. Unfortunately, we have very few sources of guidance when 

analyzing upward departures from criminal history category VI. 

The Sentencing Commission suggested that upward departures based 

on criminal history usually should be guided by the possible sentences in higher criminal history categories. See U.S.S.G. § 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 6 
4Al.3 p.s. However, there is no higher category than category 

VI--except the career criminal category. The career criminal 

category does not apply here because no violent offense or drug 

crime was involved. 

Defendant suggests that we look to the next highest offense 

level for guidance in departing upward from criminal history cat-

' 

egory VI. We do not believe the Commission intended such a procedure. The Commission carefully explained the movement to a higher 

or lower criminal history category. However, no indication is 

ever given that movement between offense levels is appropriate 

when criminal history category VI is not adequate. In fact, 

defendant's position has been explicitly rejected by the Fifth 

Circuit. 

The Guidelines ... instruct the court to move only 

between criminal history categories when it finds the 

applicable category inadequate. Guidelines§ 4Al.l. 

The factors relevant to offense levels are distinct from 

those pertinent to the criminal history categories. 

Each recommended range reflects the appropriate sentence 

for each combination of offense level and criminal history factors. Arbitrarily moving to a new offense level 

when the highest criminal history category proves inadequate would skew the balancing of factors which the 

Commission created in the Sentencing Table. 

United States v. Roberson, 872 F.2d 597, 607-8 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Because the Sentencing Commission has provided no guidance 

for determining the reasonableness of upward departures from category VI, we must simply use our own judgment as to whether the 

sentence imposed is proportional to the crime committed, in light 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 7 
of the past criminal history. In this case, we hold that the sentence imposed stretches the proportionality concept to the limit. 

Obviously, the statutory maximum sentence sets the upper limit of 

a guideline departure. Our concern, however, is ameliorated by 

the fact that the district court ordered defendant's sentence 

served in the Oklahoma state prison where he will be serving a 

. * ten-year state sentence for bogus checks. This will allow 

defendant to serve his federal and Oklahoma state sentences 

"concurrently." Thus, the actual amount of time that defendant's 

federal sentence will add to the time he would serve without it 

will be reduced well below the five years the court imposed. 

Thus, we conclude that the sentence, seen in context, does 

not violate the Sentencing Guidelines' proportionality requirements. Defendant has been defrauding people nearly his entire 

adult life. The Sentencing Guidelines do not adequately reflect 

the seriousness of defendant's background, and departure is 

appropriate. Because of the consistently bad nature of defendant's criminal history and the similarity of his past cr~me to his 

present crime, we hold that the statutory maximum is a reasonable 

sentence in this case. 

* Defendant is currently serving a ten-year sentence in 

Wisconsin. Defendant will begin serving his Oklahoma state 

sentence and his federal sentence when he is finished serving 

Wisconsin state sentence. 

-8-

his 

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 8 
III. Conclusion 

We hold that the district court was justified in departirig 

from the Sentencing Guidelines. We also hold that the departure 

was supported by adequate factual findings and that the amount of 

departure was reasonable. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-6323 Document: 01019865209 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 9