Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03741/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03741-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael James Longoria
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3741

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas. 

Michael James Longoria, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2006

Filed: June 26, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael James Longoria pled guilty without a plea agreement to five counts of

possession of counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). The district

court1

 sentenced him to 48 months imprisonment, and Longoria appeals, alleging that

the district court improperly departed upward and imposed an excessive and

unreasonable sentence. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-3741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060657
-2-

Blank checks and furnishings which had been purchased with counterfeit

checks were recovered from Longoria's residence during execution of a search

warrant. Following his indictment, a presentence report (PSR) was prepared. The

PSR calculated the loss from Longoria's offenses to be $9,050.47 and recommended

a base offense level of 6 under the advisory guidelines, a 2 level enhancement for the

amount of loss, and a 2 level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The PSR

reported that Longoria had 54 criminal history points and a criminal history category

of VI and indicated that a departure might be warranted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3

because Longoria's criminal history category was "significantly higher than the typical

defendant in Category VI", which did not "reflect the seriousness of his past criminal

conduct or the likelihood he will commit other crimes." 

The initial sentencing hearing was continued because a few issues in the PSR

needed to be addressed following the first hearing. At both sentencing hearings, the

district court stated that based on a total offense level of 6 the advisory guideline

range was 12 to 18 months and that it would consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

before determining a sentence. The government requested an upward departure based

on Longoria's criminal history and requested that the court consider a range of 24 to

30 months. It also cited United States v. Gonzales-Ortega, 346 F.3d 800, 803 (8th Cir.

2003), a case in which the district court had arrived at an upward departure by adding

1 offense level for every 3 criminal history points that exceeded 15. Longoria's sister

testified about his willingness to donate part of a kidney to her because of her liver

disease. Defense counsel and Longoria pointed to further mitigating circumstances

such as the fact that he has custody over his children, does not have a drug problem,

and made efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated in Florida. 

The district court announced that it would depart upward because Longoria's

criminal history score "set[] a record" in its experience. The court applied a ratio of

1 offense level to every 3 criminal history points above 13 to determine a potential

sentencing range of 70 to 87 months. While it considered imposing a sentence of 84

Appellate Case: 05-3741 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060657
-3-

months, the district court sentenced Longoria to 48 months and restitution of

$4,295.40. 

Longoria argues that the district court erred by basing its departure solely on his

criminal history without considering the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and by imposing

an excessive and unreasonable sentence that was above the sentencing range in the

PSR and the government's recommendation. He relies on United States v. CastroJuarez, 425 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Shannon, 414 F.3d 921 (8th

Cir. 2005), to assert that an upward departure must be based on more than a recitation

of the defendant's criminal history. Finally, Longoria suggests that the court relied

excessively on pre Booker case law. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). 

Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) an upward departure may be warranted if "reliable

information indicates that the defendant's criminal history category substantially

under-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood

that the defendant will commit other crimes". Section 4A1.3(a)(4)(B) provides that

for defendants in criminal history category VI, the court "should structure the

departure by moving incrementally down the sentencing table to the next higher

offense level in Criminal History Category VI until it finds a guideline range

appropriate to the case." Longoria had 41 more criminal history points than the 13

points which trigger category VI status. In departing the district court was guided by

§ 4A1.3(a)(4)(B) in increasing the offense level and chose to do so using a ratio of 3

points per level, which resulted in a potential advisory guideline sentence of 70 to 87

months. It then decided to impose a sentence significantly below that range. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward. See, e.g.,

Shannon, 414 F.3d at 923 ("court may depart upward on the ground that even the

highest category seriously under-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal

history"). The district court also indicated that it was considering the 18 U.S.C. §

Appellate Case: 05-3741 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060657
-4-

3553(a) factors and it in fact imposed a sentence that was lower than the potential

advisory guideline range it had calculated. Such consistency with the guidelines is

"generally indicative of reasonableness", see Shannon at 924, and the court's decision

to depart based on underrepresentation of behavior or likelihood of future crime is

supported by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3741 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060657