Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R
. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent exc ept under the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10179
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. JAM AL STEP H EN S, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 4 :08 -C R -1 6 1 -A U S D C N o . 4 :08 -C R -1 0 7 -A
B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Appe l l antJ am alS t e phe ns ( St e phe ns ) a ppe al s hi s c r i m i nals e nt e nc i ng p roce ed i n g th a t dr am atic ally de par t ed f r om the Sen ten ci n g G u i d eli n es (“U S S G ”) ba s e d o n unp r o s e c ut e d of fe ns e s . The c as e i nvo lve s t he a ppli c at i o n o f t he U SSG andfe de r als t at ut e s t o de t e r m i ne if t he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d i s pr o c e dur all y and subs t ant ively unre as onabl e. Becaus e the di st r i c tc our tco m m i t t ed pr oc edur al United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April12, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

2 errori n com pu t i n g t h e u pw ard dep art u re in t h i s up w ard d epa rt u re G u i del i n es se nt enc e, w e v ac at e the s ent enc e a nd re m and f orr es ent enc i ng. F AC T UALAND P ROCED URAL B AC KGROUN D S te p h e n s w a s im p l ic a te dins e v e n ro b b e r ie s d u r in gth e m o n th s o f A p r ilJune i n 2008. St ephens f i r strobb ed t he S ec urit y O ne B ank i n A r l i ngt on, Texas o n A p r i l1 4 a n ds u b s e q u e n t l ya n E Z M o n e y l o a n s t o r e i n Ar l i n g t o n o n Ma y2
. O n M a y9 , S te p h e n s ro b b e db o th th e C o m p a s s B a n ka n dC o m e r ic aB a n kin A r l i ngt on. Af

t ert hes e f

ourr obbe r i es , St ephens w a s a rre st ed dur i ng an unr e l at e d t r af

f i cs t o p o n a n o ut s t and i ng w arran tfo rm i l i t ar y de s e r t i o n b y t he Roc kw allpo l i c e i n Texas. As e ar c h o f t he v e hi c l e i n Roc kw allunc o ve r e d a sui t case f

u l lof drug s, $10 , 962 i n cash (l aterconf i rm ed byt h e F B I as cash f rom tw o o f th e b a n k r o b b e r ie s ), a n d a b la c k K e l-T e c 9 m m s e m i-a u to m a t i c p i s to l. S t eph en s adm i t t ed to ow n ershi p of the su i t case, bu tno d rug or f i rearm charges w e re filed becau se Steph en s agreed t o cooperat e as a conf i den t i alna rcot i cs i n f orm an t . U n deterr ed, Steph en s c om m i t t ed h is fif t h an d si xth robberi es on M a y2 8 , ro b b in gb o th th e G u a r a n tyB a n kin F o r t W o r th a n dC o m p a s s B a n kin A r lin g to n . T h e s e v e n th ro b b e r yo c c u r r e dw h e n S te p h e n s le ft T e x a s to jo in h is aunt i n Geo r g i awhe r e h e r o b b e dt he W a c ho v i aBa nki n Co l um b us , Ge o r gi a. St ephens w as event ual l y ar r es t ed i n G eo r gi a, and he c onfes se d t o the s i x Texas ro b b e rie s a n don e G e o rg iaro b b e ry . T h e se s e v e n r o b b e rie s in v o lve dth e u se of a pel l etgun and, al l ege dl y, a handgu n. H e w as charg ed w i t h a one

- c ountfede r al i ndi c t m e ntf

o rb ankr o bb e r y i n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f G e o r gi a andaf

o ur - c o unt fe d e r a l in d ic tm e n t fo rb a n kro b b e r yinth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s . H is G e o r gi a i ndi c t m e ntw as l at e rt r ans fe r r e d t o Te xa s f o rr e ar r ai gnm e nta nd s e nt e nc i ng. St e phe ns pl e ad e d guil t y t o t he fe de r alG e o r gi a i ndi c t m e ntw i t ho ut Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

T h e P S R c a l c u l a t e d a b a s e o f fe n s e l e v e l o f 2 0 p u r s u a n t t o US S G § 1 2 B 3
. 1 (a), plu s tw o a d d i ti on a ll ev els bec a u se th e offen se inv olved tak i n g p rop erty f rom a f i n an ci ali n st i t u t i on un der § 2B 3. 1(b) ( 1)
. Fu rt h er, th ree m ore l evel s w ere ad ded f or S t eph en s’ s possessi n g an d brand i shi n g of a da n gerous w eap on un der § 2 B 3 .1 (b )(2 )(E ). T h e G e o r g iaro b b e r yw a s ca lc u la te dw ith t h e s a m e b a s e le v e ls an d en h an cem en t s pl u s an ad di t i o nall e ve lbecau se t h e l oss i n volvedw as greater th a n $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 b u t le s s th a n $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 p u r s u a n t t o § 2 B 3 .1 (b )(7 )(B ). T h e n , a m u l t i pl e- coun tadj u st m en tu n der § 2 D 1. 1 arrivedat a com bi n ed of fen se l evelof 29. Th i s nu m ber w as redu ced by three l evel s f or acceptance of responsibi l i t y f or aco m b in e do ffe n s e le v e l o f 2 6
. 3 a w r i t t en pl ea a gr ee m en t . H e a l sopl eade d gui l t y t o c ountf ourof t he Texas fede ra li n d i ctm en t (th e M a y 2 8 rob b eryof C om p a ss B a n k ) a n dsti p u l a tedto c o u n t t h ree (th e M a y 2 8 rob b eryof G u a ra n ty B a n k ) i n h i s fa ctu a lresu m e in e x c h a n g e fo rd is m is s a l o f c o u n ts o n e , tw o a n dth r e e in th e T e x a s in d ic tm e n t. Th e PSR and Sent enc i ng Proc ee di ngs T h e P S R cal cul ated Steph en s’ s c om bi n ed tot alof fen se l evelt o be 26 ba sed o n th e M a y2 8 t h T e x a s r o b b e r y a n d t h e J u n e 3 0 t h G e o r g ia r o b b e r y . S t e p h e n s ’s 1 cri m i n alhi st ory sc ore w as cal cul ated at I becau se h e h ad n o pri or c on vi ct i on s or c r i m i nalhi st or y po i nt s. The G ui del i nes r an ge for i m pri so nm entw as 63 t o 7 8 m ont hs, butt he PS R not ed t hatan upw ar d depar t ure under § 5 K 2. 21 w oul d be avail abl e if

t he c our tdet er m i ned by a pre p onder ance of t he e vi denc e that S te p h e n s ’ s th r e e a d d itio n a l u n c h a r g e db a n kr o b b e r ie s a n du s e o f as e m iau t om ati c w e a pon du ri n g t h e M ay 9 robb eri es r epresented a l ow er G u i del i n es ran ge t h an norm al l y w ou l d ap pl y. Th e P S R hy pothesi zed that c on vi ct i on or s tip u la tio n o f

a l l th e b a n kro b b e r ie s (e x c lu d in gth e E Z M o n e yro b b e r y), w o u ld have y i el ded an o f

fens e l eve lof

30, not26, r es ul t i ng i n a r ange o f 97 t o 1 21 m o n t h s o f

i m p r i s o n m e n t . Ne i t h e rp a r t yo bj e c t e dt o t h e P S R. Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

4 I n i t s Fe br uar y 5, 2 00 9 o r de r , t he di s t r i c tco ur tex pr e s s e d c o nc e r n a bo ut a ccep ti n g th e p l ea ag ree m en t beca u se th e G ov ern m en t did n ot p l a n to pro secu te t he a ddit i o nalr o bb e r i e s orre s ul t i ng gu n of fe ns e s unde r18 U
. S. C. § 924 (c )
. The c o u r t t h e o r iz e dth a t c o n v ic tio n fo rth e § 9 2 4 (c ) o ffe n s e s w o u ldh a v e re s u lte din a m an da t ory 684-m on t h sentence, consecutive t o Steph en s’ s r obbery sen t en ce. F u rt h er, the court noted t h at S t eph en s cou l d n otbe requir ed to pa y rest i t u t i on t o t he b ank s a nd s t at e d t he s e nt e nc e sho ul d be “ s i gnif i c ant l y ab o ve t he t o p o f t he a d v is o r yg u id e lin e ra n g e ” t o a d e q u a te lya d d r e s s S te p h e n s ’ s cr im in a l co n d u c t. T h e G overnm en texpl ai n ed i t s deci si on not t o pu rs u e § 924(c) charges, st at i ng i t di d notbe l i eve i tc oul d pr ove t he o f fens es be yond a r eas onabl e do ubt becau se ( 1) Steph en s onl y confes sed t o al lt h e robberi es w i t h t h e use of a pel l et gun, ( 2) t he M ay 9 t ell er s w er e unabl e t o i dent i f y St ephens i n a phot o li neup, ( 3) on e of t h ese t el l ers h adnot m en t i on ed S t eph en s usi n g a gu n , ( 4) t h e ot h er t el l er m e nt i o ne d St e phe ns us e d as i lve rgun, and ( 5) a bl ac k, notsilve r , gun was t he on l y w eap on con f

i scat ed du ri n g t h e M ay 14 arrest . T h e G overnm en tdi d ad vi se t h e courti tco u ld d e pa rtf rom t h e G u i del i n es if i tf ou n d bya prepon deran ce of t h e evi den ce t h at Stephen s di d u se a f i rearm du ri n g t h e robberi es. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta c c e pt e d t he pl e a ag r e e m e ntb utf o und t hatSt ephens had used a f

i r ear m i n t hre e o f

t he r obbe r i es . The c ou rt a l so f ound t hat St e phe ns ’ s us e o f

t he f i r e ar m dur i ng t he EZ M o ne y r o bbery d i d no tr e s ul ti n a § 9 24 (c ) of

fe ns e b e c aus e t he r o bb e r y c o ul d no tb e fe de r all y pr o s e c ut e d. The di st r i c tc our tdet er m i ned t hatt he useof the f ir ear m duri ng t he A priland M ay robberi es r esul t ed i n t h ree § 924 (c) g u n off en ses an d that Steph en s used a p el l et gun i n t he l at err obbe r i es only be c ause hi s gun had bee n se i ze d duri ng t he M ay 1 4 arre st. Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

Th e c our tr eli ed o n t he c harge s f r om t he PS R and t hos e a dm i t t ed by 2 St e phe ns “t o t he e xt e ntt ho s e o t he rr o bb e r i e s a l s o i nvo lve d g un o f fe ns e s , t he g un o ffe n s e s w e r e n o t t a k e n in to a c c o u n t in th e g u id e lin e ca lc u la tio n s .” 5 S t eph en s obj ect ed to t h ese f i n di n gs an d co n te n d ed that t h ere w as not suf f i c i entev i denc e t o e st abl i sh hi s use of a r ealgun duri ng t he M ay 2 and M ay 9 r o bb e r i e s b y a pr e po nde r anc e o f t he e vi de nc e be c aus e o f t he c o nt r ad i c t o r y gun de s c r i pt i o ns i n t he o f fe ns e r e po r t s . S t eph e ns f ur t he ra s s e r t e d t hate ve n if t he court coul d f

i n d t h at a realg u n w as u sed du ri n g t h ose robberi es, tha tthe cou rt coul d n otuse t h e m an da t ory m i n i m u m s un der § 924(c) t o ju stif y an up w ard d e p a r t u r e b e c a u s e t h e G u i d e l i n e s a l r e a d y a c c o u n t e d f o r t h e u s e o f a n yf

i r e a r ms t h rough G u i del i n e enh an cem en t s. Th e di st r i c tc our ts ent enc ed St ephens t o 240 m ont hs on eac h c ount , tobe s e rve d c on c ur r e nt l y, f o l l o w e d b y a t hr e e - ye art e r m o f s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e a nd ordered $21 , 908 in restit u t i on to b e p ai d. T h e cou rtb ased i t s u pw ard d epa rt u re on § 5K 2. 21 to r ef

l ectt h e seri ou sness of the con du cta n d f or c h arges di sm i ssed o rno tpur s ue d a s pa r to f t he pl e a ag r e e m en t . The c o ur te m pha s i z e d t he 2 f ol l ow i ng addi t i onalfac t or s: i) St ephens ’ s pro pensit y t o v i ol enc e, as ev i denc e b y u se of pel l etan d/or f

i rearm s du ri n g t h e robberi es, ii) t h e i n abili t y t o order r e s t it u t i on , an d i i i) Steph en s’ s c om m i s s i o n o f thr e ea ddit i o nalr o bb e r i e s f o ll o w i ng h i s M ay 14 arres tan d rel ease. In a d d i t i on t o t h e oralreasons given du ri n g t h e sentenci n g proceedi n gs, t h e di st ri ctcourtal so provi ded a w rit t en Statem en tof R eason s (“ S O R ”) f

or St ephens ’ s se nt enc e. The c our tp rovi ded m any of t he s am e r eas ons given at se nt enc i ng as w ellas t w o a ddi t i onalc ons i der at i ons . The SO R r eit er at ed t hat Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

6 t h e courtd epa rt ed u pw ardl y pu rsuan tto § 5K 2. 21 t o ref l ectthe seri ou sness of th e cr im e s , th e u n c h a r g e dro b b e r ie s , a n dth e u n c h a r g e d§ 9 2 4 (c ) o ffe n s e s . Th e c our tc al c ul at ed t hatc onvi c t i ons on s eve n rob b erie s w oul d have resul t ed i n a G u i del i n e rang e of 97 to 121 m on t h s and t h ree § 924 (c) of fen ses w ou l d h ave resul t ed in ac o ns ecutive 684

- m on t h t erm . M oreover, t h e courtnoted t hatt he banks suf

fer ed c om b i ned l os se s of ov er$44, 000, w hi c h co ul d notbe c o r r e c t e db yr e s t it u t io n , a n dc o n c lu d e dt h a tt h e r e s t it u t io n p o r t io n o f S t e p h e n s ’s se nt enc e di d n otadequat ely re f l ec tthe ac t uall os se s r es ul t i ng f r om hi s c r i m i nal c o n d u c t. F or t h e f

i rs t t im e , t h e courtal so s t ated t h at itha d u pw ardl y dep art ed u n de r § 4A 1 .3 b e ca u se S te p h e n s’s cr im in a l h isto ryca te g o rysu b sta n tia llyun derr e p r e s e n te dth e s e r io u s n e s s o f h is c r im in a l p a s t a n dth e lik e lih o o dth a t h e w o u ld com m i t f

u tu re crim es. F u rth erm ore , the co u rt ind i ca tedth a t itw a s ba singi ts dep art u re f

rom t h e G u i del i n es on a h yp ot h et i calG u id el i n e cal cul ati on det er m i ned by t he c our t . Th i s hypot het i c al gui del i ne w as c al c ul at ed byusi ng, w i t ho ute xp l ana t i o n, a n o f fe ns e l e ve lo f

3 1 andc r i m i nalhi s t o r y s c o r e o f V I
. The resu l t i ng hypot het i c alyi el ded a r ange o f 188 t o 2 35 m ont hs o f i m pri so nm en t. Las t l y, t he c o ur t s t at e d t hat unde r t he a dv i s o r y G ui de l i ne s r ang e , § § 4A1. 3 and 5K 2. 21, an d § 355 3( a) fact ors, a sentence of 240 m o n t h s, w h i l e “ a rather s i gnif i c antupwar d de pa r t ur e , [ w as ] nec e s s ar y t o re f l e c tt he se r i o us ne s s of t he def end a nt ’ s ac t ualof

fens e b ehavi or , af

f or d adequat e de t er r enc e t o c r i m i nal c o n d u c t, a n dp r o te c t t h e p u b licfr o m fu r th e rcr im e s o f th e d e fe n d a n t.” S TANDARD S OF R EVI EW T h e di st ri ct court’ s f

i n di n gs of fact rel ated t o sentenci n g are revi ew ed f or c le a re r r o r . Un itedS ta tes v. Ca stillo , 4 3 0 F .3 d2 3 0 , 2 3 8 -3 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

Specif i c al l y, t he l ac k of

ex pl anat i on in ca l c ul at i ng i t s hypot het i c al 3 gui del i ne r a ng e o f

1 2 8 t o 2 3 5 m o nt hs o n a n o f fe ns e l e v e lo f

3 1 a ndc r i m i nal hi st or y c at ego r y of

V I w hen t he P SR found t he range f orthe s i x ro bber i es t hat i n volvedt h e use of

f i rearm s i n som e of

t h e cr i m es t o be 97 to 121 m on t h s, based o n ato ta l o ffe n s e le v e l o f 3 0 a n dcr im in a l h is to r yca te g o r yo f I. 7 r e vi e w de no vo w he t he rt he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d i s pr o c e dur all y s o und, i nc l udi ng t h e accuracy of

t h e adv i sory G u i del i n e cal cul ati on s and expl an ati on s f or d e v ia tio n s fr o m th e G u id e lin e ’ s ra n g e . G al l v . Uni t ed S t ate s , 552 U
. S. 38, 46 (2 0 0 7 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Ar m s t ro ng , 5 5 0 F .3 d3 8 2 , 4 0 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). U pw ard d epa rt u res t h at are au t h ori zed bythe G u i del i n es are consi dered aG u id e lin e s e n te n c e . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. T ze p -Mejia , 46 1 F
. 3 d52 2 , 52 5 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. U nus uall y har s h s e nt e nc es m us tb e e xp l ai ne d wi t h s uf f i c i e nt j u st i f i cat i on s because t h e G u i del i n es are “ t h e produ ctof caref u lst u dybased on ext ens ive em pi r i c alev i denc e de r ived f r om the r evi ew of

t housands of

i ndivi dual sen ten ci n g d ecisi on s. ” G a ll , 5 52 U
. S
. a t46. B ecau se w e f i n d p rocedural error s, w e do no tc o ns i de rt he s e c on d s t e p o f t he s ubs t ant ive r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he s e n te n c e u n d e rth e fa c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). I d. D I SC US SI ON I
. U pw ar d depar t ure s f ort he s am e c onductunder Sec t i ons 4A 1. 3 and 5K 2. 21 S t e p h e n s c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c i n gc a l c u l a t i o n . H e 3
m ai n t ai n s t h at § 4A 1. 3 i s a perm i ssibl e basi s f or depa rt u re on i t s ow n or as a po t e nt i ala l t e r nat ive t o ve r t i c aldep ar t ur e unde r§ 5K 2. 21 , b utc o nt e nds t hatt he sam e un cha rged cond u ctcann ot serve as a basi s f or bot h of

fen se- l eveldep art u re und er§ 5K 2. 21 and c r i m i nal

- hi st or y de par t ure under § 4A 1. 3. Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

Se e Cade , 279 F. 3d at271 (c i t i ng Hu n d erlach , 258 F. 3d at1286- 87; 4 Un i t ed S t ate s v. B air d , 1 0 9 F .3 d8 5 6 , 8 6 3 n .4 (3 dC ir . 1 9 9 7 ); Uni t e d St a t e s v. W ash bu rn , 5 F .3 d1 0 7 2 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Un i t e d St ate s v. Jon es , 948 F .2 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 7 n . 1 1 (D .C
. C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Kim , 896 F. 2d 678, 683 ( 2d C ir. 1 9 9 0 )). 8 I n Un itedS ta tes v. G u tierr ez -Her n a n d ez , 581 F
. 3d25 1 , 2 5 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), w e held th a tan up w ard d epa rt u re un der § 4A 1. 3 an d § 5K 2. 0 w as err or. A l t h ou gh t h e l ow er c ou rt coul d use § 4A 1. 3 as a proper basi s un der t h e fact s f or a l l ow i n g crim i n a l -history e n h a n cem en ts, § 4A 1
. 3 w a s n ot a p rop er b a sis to in c r e a s e th e o ffe n s e le v e l. Se ei d. A l so, § 5K 2. 0 coul d not j u st i f y a dep art u re of o ffe n s e le v e ls b a s e do n th e cu lp a b ilityo f ap r io rco n v ic tio n . Se ei d. at 25 5
. In Uni t e d St at e s v . Cade , 27 9 F
. 3 d26 5 , 2 7 2 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 2 ), w e h eld th a t a defenda n t ’ s pri or s t ate s en t en ces coul d n otbe usedas t h e basi s f or an u pw ard d e p a r tu r e u n d e r§ 4A 1 .3 w h e n it w a s a lr e a d yco n s id e r e d in th e c a lc u la tio n o f h is o f fe ns e l e ve l unde r § 1 B1. 1. I n Cade , the distri ct cou rt con sider ed C a d e’ s state sentences as r el evan tcondu ctt o t h e i n st an tof fen se. W e noted t h at th e di st ri ct court coul d n ott h en use t h ese s t ate s en t en ces i n C ad e’ s cri m i n al h i st ory sc ore be c aus e t he y w e r e us e d as r e l e va nt c o nduc t , w hi c h i s c o ns i de r e d “ pa rtof t he i ns t anto f

fe ns e , ” a nd n o tpr i o rse nt e nc e s as def i ne d by§ 4A1. 2. W e a nalyz e d the ca se of Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hu n erlach , 2 58 F
. 3d1 282 (11th C i r. 200 1) , an d ad opted t h e reasoni n g of

t h e Hunde r lac h court t h at once a di st ri ctc o u rtdeter m i n es a s e n te n c e a s r e le v a n t co n d u c t to th e in s ta n t of fe n s e to a dju s t th e o ffe n s e le v e l, it can n ott h en be usedas a basi s f or a cri m i n alh i st ory category d epa rt u re un der § 4A 1 .3(a ). 4 Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

9 H ere, t h ere i s no d isp u te b et w eent h e parti es t h at th e di st ri ctcourt a tte m p t ed an up w ard d epa rt u re gui del i n e sentence. H ow ever, w h en a court u ses rel evan tcondu ct (u n cha rged of fen ses) t o up w ardl y dep artby of fen se l evel s, i t sho ul d not t hen use t hi s c onduct t o add t o t he c r i m i nal hi st ory catego r y. G u t i errez- Hernan d ezde a l t w i th the distri ct j u d ge ’ s p roce d u ra lerro r of t ry i n g to cha n ge t h e of

fen se l evelw h en t h e G u i del in e j u st i f i cat i on s onl y al l ow ed f or a c h a n g e in th e cr im in a l h is to r yca te g o r y . S ee 58 1 F. 3da t 25 4- 55
. I n t he i ns t ant c as e , t he di s t r i c tco ur tco m m i t t e d pr o c e dur aler r o runde rt he f i r s ts t e p i n G a ll in a t t e m p t in gad e p a r t u r e u n d e raG u id e li n e s s e n t e n c e b yin c r e a s in gS t e p h e n s ’s o ffe n s e le v e l fr o m 2 6 to 3 1 a n dcr im in a l h is to r yca te g o r yfr o m I to V I w h ile j u st i f yi n g such a dep art u re un der t h e G u i del i n es based on t h e sam e un cha rged c o n d u c t u n d e r§ 4A 1 .3 a n d§ 5 K 2 .2 1
. II
. Secti on 924 (c) O f

fen ses an d M an da t ory M i n i m u m Sen t en ces A
. Fa c t ualFi ndi ngs on G un Us age St e phe ns c o nt e nds t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hatSt e phe ns u sed a realf

i rearm an d n ota pel l etgu n i nt h e M ay 2n d an d M ay 9th robb eri es c ons t i t ut es er r or . As s t at ed pr evi ous l y, fac t ualf i ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed f orc l ear e r r o r . Se eAr m s t r o ng , 5 50 F. 3da t4 04
. The P S R sta t e d t hatSt e phe ns us e d a f i r e ar m i n t he M ay2nd and M ay9 t h r o bb e r i e s . St e phe ns di d no to bj e c tt o t he PSR ; i n st ead , he o bj e c t e d t o t he s e nt e nc i ng f i ndi ngs o n g r o unds o f i ns uf f i c i e nt evi den ce. Adi st r ictcourtm ay con si der al lrel evan t , even i n ad m i ssibl e, evi den ce i n m a k in gfa c tu a l fin d in g s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Patt ers on , 9 6 2 F. 2 d409, 415 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2)
. A di s t r i c tc o ur tm aya dopt f i n di ngs i n t he PSR w i t ho ut ad di t i o nali nquir y i f

as uf f i c i e nti ndi c i a o f

r e l i ab i l i t y e xi s t s a nd if t he de fe nda nt does n otpr e s e ntr e but t ale vi de nc e o ro t he r w i s e de m o ns t r at e t hatt he Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

10 in fo r m a tio n is m a te r ia llyu n r e lia b le
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ord , 558 F. 3d 371, 377 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). St ephens f

urni she d the w i t nes se s’s t at em ent s f r om t he r obbe r i es t hat i ndi c at e d t hatt he r o bb e rc ar r i e d “ a s i lve r hand gun , po s s ibly a r e vo lve r , ” t hathe w as b r and i s hi ng a pi st o l , a nd thathe ha d as i lve rs e m i

- aut o m at i cha ndg un. T h ese s t atem en t s c orroborat ed the f i n di n gs of

t h e P S R tha ta ha n dg u n an d n ot a pel l e tr i f

l e w e r e us e d. W hi l e St e phe ns po i nt s o utt hatt he a r r e s tr e port m ent i ons t hata black p i stol w a s con fi sca te d , t h is e rror is i n su ff i ci en t t o dem ons t ra te c l ear e r r oras t o the f i ndi ng t hatSt ephens use d a f i r e a r m dur i ng t h e robberi es. Th e di st ri ct court’ s determ i n ati on t h at S t eph en s u sed a f i rearm duri ng t he M ay 2nd and M ay 9t h r obbe r i es i s pl ausibl e i n l i ghtof t he r ec or d as a w h ol e, an d theref

ore, not c l earl y erroneou s. B
. Un cha rged 92 4(

c)Of f enses i n Calc u lati on of S ente n ce S te p h e n s a ls o c o m p la in s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ca lc u la tio n in a s m u c h a s it u s e du n c h a r g e d§ 9 2 4 (c ) o ffe n s e s a s t h e b a s is fo ra§ 5 K 2 .2 1 d e p a r tu r e w h e n it a ls o a p p lie da n o ffe n s e l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 B 3 .1 (b )(2 ). W e fin dth is c a lc u la tio n g o e s a g a in s t t h e p o lic yb e h in d§ 2 K 2 .4
. Se c t i o n 2B3. 1(b) ( 2) l ay s o ut dif fe r i ng o f

fe ns e l e ve li nc r e as e s b as e d o n t he u sage of

th e fire a rm f

rom add i n g 2 l evel s up t o 7 add i t i on alof fen se l evel s. M o re o v e r, § 2 B 3 .1(b )(2) ca n on ly b e a p p li e d if a d e fen d a n t is n o t co n v icte dof a § 9 24 (c ) of

fe ns e , butif

t he G o ve r nm e ntc har ge s a nd p r o ve s a§ 9 24 (c ) v i o l at i o n, § 2 K 2. 4 pr o hibit s a ppli c at i o n o f t hi s s e pa r at e o f

fe ns e e nhan c e m e nt . H e r e , t he di st ri ctcourtapp l i ed an of fen se l evelenh an cem en ti n t h e i n st an tcase u n der § 2B 3. 1(b) ( 2) ( E )
. B y f

i n di n g § 924 (c) vi ol ati on s and t h en att em pti n g t o st ack those en h an cem en t s un der § 5K 2. 21, t h e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed p rocedural error . Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 10179

W e note, w i t h ou tcom m en t , t h at th e di st ri ct court ret ai n s di scr et i on on 5 rem an d t o m ak e ade t e r m i nat i o n o n t he pr o pr i e t y o f ano n- gui de l i ne s e nt e nce butm us tf

i r s tc o m put e apr o pe rg ui de l i ne s e nt e nc e b e f o r e a t t e m pt i ng t o m ak e ap r o p e rn o n -g u id e lin e s e n te n c e o ru p w a r d g u id e lin e d e p a r tu r e o th e r w is e in c o n f o r mi t ywit h t h e l a w. 11 T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n o t properl y com pu t e an up w ard d epa rt u re Gu i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e s e n t e n c e i s VAC AT ED , a n dwe R EMAND 5 f o rr e s e nt e nc i ng c o ns i s t e ntw i t h o uro pi ni o n. Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/12/2010