Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08025/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Michael Kalady
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~JJ 

United States Court of Appeal~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH MICHAEL KALADY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 1 7 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-8025 

(D.C. No. 89CR125-1J) 

(District of Wyoming) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENTl 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and 

SAFFELs,2 District Judge. 

Defendant was convicted in 1990 for failure to appear for 

trial in violation of 18 U.S . C. § 3146 (1988). At sentencing, the 

trial judge found that under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the appropriate sentence was twenty-four to thirty months. 

However, the trial judge also found that even though Defendant had 

criminal history category VI, the maximum under the guidelines, 

this criminal history did not adequately reflect the extent of his 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 Honorable Dale E. Saffels, United States Senior District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-8025 Document: 010110175756 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 1 
criminal behavior. He therefore departed upwardly from the guidelines and imposed a sentence of forty months. 

On appeal, we affirmed the underlying conviction. United 

States v . Kalady, 941 F . 2d 1090 (10th Cir. 1991) [hereinafter 

Kalady I]. We also agreed with the trial court that an upward 

departure was warranted. Id . at 1099. However, we remanded for 

resentencing because the trial court did not adequately explain 

its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence imposed . Id . 

at 1100 . We suggested two methods that the trial court could use 

for setting a sentence when category VI is inadequate. 

First, the increments between the Guidelines ranges 

could assist both the sentencing court and the reviewing 

court in gauging the reasonableness of the degree of 

departure . Observing the point value assigned to various criminal history elements and the way they move one 

upward through the criminal history categories could 

help the court determine an appropriate analogue sentence .... Second, the career offender category, 

U.S.S . G. § 4Bl.l, may provide the appropriate analogy in 

some cases. 

Id. (quoting United States v. Jackson, 921 F . 2d 985, 993 (1 0th 

Cir. 1990) (en bane) (citations omitted)) . 

On remand, the trial court followed the first suggestion from 

Kalady I. It extrapolated criminal history categories VII, VIII, 

IX and X, and found that Defendant fit category VIII. Extrapolating the sentences from the guidelines, the court found the appropriate range to be thirty to thirty- seven months. Accordingly, it 

imposed a sentence of thirty-six months. 

Defendant filed a timely appeal. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-8025 Document: 010110175756 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 2 
I 

Defendant argues that the upward departure in this case was 

unwarranted and that the practice of extrapolating further criminal history categories beyond category VI violates the purpose of 

the guidelines. We will not consider these arguments, because 

they were addressed in the prior appeal. It is the law of this 

case that an upward departure was warranted, that criminal history 

category VI did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Defendant's criminal record, and that extrapolating further criminal 

history categories can be an appropriate way of setting the sentence. See Kalady I , 941 F . 2d at 1099-1100 . Defendant presents 

no sound reason why these conclusions should be reconsidered. See 

Bromley v. Crisp. 561 F . 2d 1351, 1363 (10th Cir. 1977) ("an appel -

late court will not depart from a rule of law established on an 

e arlier appe al in deciding the same issues, except for cogent reasons"), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908 (1978). 

II 

In resentencing Defendant after our remand, the trial court 

explicitly based its extrapolated calculation of criminal history 

in part on "sentences otherwise excluded due to the passage of 

time, pursuant to Application Notes 1 and 2, under Section 

4Al.l (a) and 4Al.l (b) [of the s e ntencing guidelines]." (R. vol . 

I, Doc. 60, at 4.) Defendant argues that this was error. We disagr e e . Once a sentencing court justifiably departs from the 

guideline s, i t "has considerable discretion in appraising a 

d e fendant's c r iminal history." Jackson, 921 F.2d at 991. In our 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-8025 Document: 010110175756 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 3 
prior opinion, we specifically discussed these same past convictions in reaching the conclusion that an upward departure was 

warranted. Kalady I, 941 F.2d at 1099; see also United States v. 

Russell, 905 F . 2d 1439, 1442-44 (convictions not counted under the 

guidelines can be the basis for an upward departure) . We conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering these convictions when it set the degree of its departure from 

the guidelines. 

III 

Defendant next argues that the actual sentence imposed under 

the upward departure was unduly harsh. We review this issue under 

a standard of reasonableness. See Kalady. 941 F . 2d 1098. 

We conclude that t he sentence imposed by the district court 

was entirely reasonable. In calculating Defendant's criminal history, the court gave Def endant the benefit of the doubt and did 

not count two convictions that Defendant claimed were imposed 

without benefit of counsel. The district court used exactly the 

kind of extrapolation suggested by this court in the prior appeal. 

The final sentence imposed was only six months longer than the 

maximum the court could have imposed without an upward departure . 

We AFFIRM . 

4 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-8025 Document: 010110175756 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 4