Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05113/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jayson Matthew Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAYSON MATTHEW HARRIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUN g l 19§0 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5113 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-06-B) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

June E. Tyhurst, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for defendant-appellant. 

Tony M. Graham, United States Attorney, and Susan w. Pennington, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for plaintiff-appellee. 

Before LOGAN and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD,* District 

Judge. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge 

* The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior United States District 

Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of 

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-5113 Document: 01019871081 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 1 
The only issues in this appeal concern whether the district 

court acted properly in sentencing defendant Jayson Harris. After 

defendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting wire fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, the court sentenced him to a 

four-year term of imprisonment without referencing the Sentencing 

Guidelines. After Mistretta v. United States, 109 s. Ct. 647 

(1989), we remanded for resentencing under the Guidelines. 1 

Defendant's base offense level calculated under the 

Guidelines is 10, with criminal history points of 9, placing him 

in category IV, which sets a Guidelines range of fifteen to 

twenty-one months. The district court concluded in the following 

language that the Guidelines did not adequately take into account 

defendant's past criminal history, and it departed upward to 

~eimpose a forty-eight month sentence: 

"Of course, the problem that is presented to the 

Court in this case is the fact that is rather clear, Mr. 

Harris, that with seven prior felony convictions and 

three serious misdemeanor matters you have a long 

history over the past twenty years of fraud and 

deception. These various felony convictions involve 

forgeries of instruments, theft by deception of· an 

automobile, interstate transportation of stolen 

securities, bogus checks, embezzlement by trustee, and 

numerous serious misdemeanor offenses that involve 

dishonesty. And from the Court's review of your 

criminal history, one of the principal problems that you 

have been the beneficiary of, is too much leniency in 

probation directed towards you to this point. 

The Court at this time determines, and it will be 

ordered, Mr. Harris, that you will be committed to the 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5113 Document: 01019871081 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 2 
custody of the Department -- to the Bureau of Prisons, 

for a period of 48 months. And the reason the Court has 

decided to go out of the guidelines here is because the 

Court finds that there are aggravating circumstances 

that exist to a kind and degree not adequately taken 

into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in 

formulating the guidelines. And as a ·result of it, the 

sentence should result in a sentence different than that 

provided by the guidelines, that is, the fifteen to 

twenty-one months. And the basic reason for that is, is 

the guideline range here under represents the 

Defendant's criminal behavior and likely recidivism, and 

that an upward departure is warranted. Essentially, 

because of these prior, past felony convictions I 

mentioned, seven, along with three serious misdemeanors. 

The two guideline definitions serve to understate 

the Defendant's criminal history. First, convictions 

resulting in probation that occurred ten years or more 

before the instant events are not counted. And 

secondly, the guidelines consider cases related if they 

are consolidated for the · purposes of trial or 

sentencing. These definitions, the Court concludes, as 

they relate to this Defendant, Mr. Harris, are overly 

broad and result in a score that under represents the 

seriousness of this Defendant's criminal history, and 

th.e danger that he represents to the community. For the 

reasons stated the Court does and intends to depart 

herein." 

IR. Supp. 10-11, 12-13. 

After the district court's action in the instant case, this 

court set out a three-part standard of review of sentences 

departing from the Guidelines. United States v. White, 893 F.2d 

276, 277-78 (10th Cir. 1990). We determine de novo whether the 

circumstances cited by the district court justify a departure. 

The court may depart upward only if it finds aggravating 

circumstances that were not adequately considered by the 

Sentencing Commission in formulating the Guidelines. Id. at 278. 

Here, the district court stated valid circumstances for upward 

departure by referencing the very lenient treatment defendant 

received on many of his offenses, and his high likelihood of 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5113 Document: 01019871081 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 3 
recidivism, see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines 

Manual, § 4Al.3 & comment. at 4.9-4.lQ (Nov. 1989) (hereinafter 

u.s.s.G.); as well as defendant's prior cases that were 

consolidated for sentencing, id. § 4Al.2 comment. (n.3) at 4.7, 

and his sentences of parole imposed more than ten years prior to 

defendant's commencement of the instant offense, id. § 4Al.l 

comment. (n.3) at 4.3, these latter two factors resulting in only 

three of defendant's numerous convictions being used to calculate 

his criminal history points. 

We review the district court's finding that the cited 

circumstances justifying departure actually exist in the instant 

case under a clearly erroneous standard. White, 893 F.2d at 278. 

Because there is no disagreement with defendant's conviction 

history as set forth in the presentence report, we must uphold its 

determination in this respect. 

Step three is our review of the degree of the district 

court's departure from the Guidelines, which we review under a 

"reasonableness" standard. 18 u.s.c. § 3742(e) ( 3); White, 893 

F.2d at 278. In White, we noted that the Sentencing Commission 

itself had given us "a clear guide," id. at 280, by instructing 

sentencing courts to use, as a reference, the guideline range for 

a defendant with the criminal history category that the court 

thinks most closely resembles the seriousness of the defendant's 

criminal history. u.s.s.G., § 4Al.3, p.s. at 4.9-4.10. The 

district court does have discretion in this area, of course, and 

need only give a reasonable methodology hitched to the Sentencing 

Guidelines to justify the reasonableness of the departure. See 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-5113 Document: 01019871081 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 4 
United States v. Gardner, No. 89-6289, F.2d , slip op. at 

14 (10th Cir. June 18, 1990) ("In many instances, this will 

consist of an extension of or extrapolation from other guideline 

levels or principles, or use of an analogy to other closely 

related conduct or circumstances that are addressed by the 

guidelines."). 

In the instant case the district court did not make any 

comparison to higher criminal history categories. The departure 

was to sentence to forty-eight months, more than double the 

twenty-one months that was the maximum under the applicable 

Guidelines. Despite a long record of nonviolent, nondrug crimes, 

defendant does not meet the requirements for a career offender 

under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, nor as one who engages in a pattern of 

criminal conduct as a livelihood, id. § 4B1.3. 

When we give effect to the aim of the Sentencing Guidelines 

to promote uniformity and proportionality in sentencing, u.s.s.G., 

Ch. 1, Pt. A, intro. 3 p.s. at 1.2, the requirements in White for 

comparisons with higher criminal history ranges, and the need for 

the district court to articulate reasons for its degree of 

departure as well as its justification for any departure, in 

establishing sentences, we hold that we must REVERSE and REMAND 

for resentencing. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-5113 Document: 01019871081 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 5