2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-29-2003 

# U SA v . Li vin gs t on P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t 02-1454

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L ivin gs t on " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 614. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/614NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-1454

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ANTHONY L. LI VINGS TON Anthony Livingston,

Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey D.C. CriminalNo. 01-cr- 00465 (Honorable J erome B. Simandle ) Argued February

27, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , GR EE NB ER G a nd G IBS ON *, Circu it Judges

(Fil ed : April28, 2003) 

### PAUL M. P ERLSTEI

N, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) P.O. Box 834 Doyl estown, Pe

nnsy lvania 18901 Attorney for Appella

nt

*The Honorable John R. Gibson, United Stat es Circui t Judge for the Eight

h Judici al Circuit , si tting by des ignati on.1 We have juris dicti on under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 

### GLENN J. MORAMARCO , ESQUIRE (ARGUED) Office of United States Attorney Camden Federa l Building & Courtho use 401 Market St

reet,4th Floor P.O. Box 2098 Camden,New Jers ey

08101 GEORGE S. LEONE, ESQUIRE Office of United States Attorney 970 Broad Stre et, Room

700 Newark, Ne

w Jerse y 07102 Attorneys for Appellee

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

SC IRI CA , Circu it Judge

. I. Antho ny Livingston a ppeals from the District Cou rt’s grant of a tw o level upw ard departur e under U.S.S. G. § 4A1.3, which was based on Li vingst on’s ext ensive criminal hi st oryandli kel ih oodof r eci di vi sm. 1 II. Livingst on admitt ed to robbing eight Sout hern New Jersey

banks between December 14, 2000 and Januar y 23, 2001 with the s ame modus operandi: using a handwritt en demand note that st ated, in subst ance, “t his i s a robber

y, I have a gun, I willshoot2 The Distri ct Court noted that CriminalHistory

Category

VI requir es 13 cri minal hist orypoints . Livi ngston had 26 criminalhist orypoints , and would have had 43 criminal histo ry poin ts if a ll his p rior c onv ictio ns w ere c oun ted. 3 you, put allthe moneyin the ba g, fast .” On January 23, 2001, Li vingst on was arrest ed and found in poss ession of one of these notes. He pleaded guil ty to an ei ght count informat ion charging him with ei ght bank robberies. Prior to sentencing, a pres entence report determi ned Livingston had 31 prior adult c riminalconvict ions, resul ting in 26 crimina l his tory

points which placed hi m in CriminalHistory Category

VI, the top crimina l his tory

categor y. At the sent encing hearing the gove rnment moved for an upw ard depa rture based o n Living ston’s extensive criminal history. The D istrict Court granted a two levelupward departur e, rai sing Livingston’s totaloffense le vel from l evel 29 to leve l 31. 2 Livingst on was sentenced to a 220 month ter m of imprisonment , which was within hi s new sentenci ng guideline range of 188 t o 235 months. Li vingst on now app eals , cha lleng ing the tw o lev el up wa rd d epa rture . III. The decisi on to grant

an upward depart

ure is subject

to defer entia l revi ew for abu se o f dis creti on. Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 98-100 (1996). Livingst on contends t

hat, in deci ding to gr ant a two level upward depar ture, the Dist

rict Court abused its discr etion by

fail ing to pr operly

follow the “ratc heting” procedure s et fort h in United States v. Hickman , 991 F.2d 1110 (3 d Cir. 199 3), and Un ited Sta tes v. H arris , 44 F.3d 1206 (3d Cir. 1995)

.4

W e w ill affirm. IV. Und er U.S.S.G . § 4A1 .3, “If reliable informa tion indicates that the crim inal history categor y does not adequat ely

refle ct the seri ousness of t he defendant’ s past c riminal conduct or t

he like lihood t

hat the defendant wil l commit ot her cri mes, the court may consider imposing a s entence departi ng from the otherwise appl icabl e guidel ine range .” U.S .S.G . § 4A 1.3. I n ex plain ing the m ean s of calc ulati ng t he e xten t of a dep artu re, § 4A1.3 states: In consi dering a de partur e under thi s provis ion, t he Commission int ends that t he court us e, as a reference, the guide line range for a defendant with a higher or lower cri minal hi story

categor y, as appli cable. For example, if the court conc ludes that the de fendan t’s criminal history category of III signi ficant ly

under-r epresent s the se riousne ss of the defendant’ s cri minal history , and that the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal his tory most closely resembles that of most defendan ts with Crim inal History Catego ry IV, the cour

t shoul d look to t

he guidel ine range specifi ed for a defendant wit h C rimi nal H istor y Cate gor y IV to gui de its dep artu re. Id. In Hickman we said that , in de ciding to grant an upward de partur e, a sentencing

cour t mus t proce ed se quen tially throug h the n ext hig her crim inal histo ry catego ries un til the court arrives at a c ategory that adequ ately reflects the seriousness of a defen dant’s pas t crim inal c ond uct. Hickman , 991 F .2d at 1 114 (“. . . [T]h e cou rt is oblige d to determi ne which categor y ( of those hi gher than t he categor

y or iginal ly

calcul ated for

the defendant) best r epresent s the defe ndant’s prior crimina l his tory . The court then uses the5

corres pon ding senten cing ra nge to ‘guid e its dep arture.’ M oreo ver, the cour t is oblige d to proceed seque ntial ly

through t

hese cat egories . It

may not move t o the next higher categor y unt il i t has found t

hat a pri or cate gorysti ll fa ils to adequat ely refle ct the seri ousness of t

he defendant’ s past c riminalconduct. ”). We explained in Ha rris that Hickman “. . . does not ‘re quire th e district c ourt to g o thro ugh a ritualistic e xercis e in which it mechani call y di scusses each cri minal hi story categor y i t rej ects en route to t

he category that it selects.’ Hickman and the obj ecti ve of the § 4A1.3 r atchet ing proces s do requir e, however, that t he sentenc ing court ’s rea sons for r eject ing each l esser c ategory be clear from the re cord as a whole. ” 44 F.3d at 1212. V. In thi s case, the Dist

rict Court properly

proceeded t

hrough the criminalcategor ies in asse ssing t

he appropri ate sent encing l evel for Livingst on. In i mposing the t wo level upward departur e, the Distr ict Court sequenti ally

consider ed and rej ected a one l evel upw ard dep artu re b efo re ex ercis ing its dis creti on t o im pos e a tw o lev el up wa rd d epa rture . The Distri ct Court s aid: Now, I’m instructed by the Guidel ine commentary to depart

upward no greate r than i s necessaryto achi eve the goal s of the s entenci ng Guideline s and esp ecially the goals of pun ishment an d deterring fu ture miscon duct. If I were to depart upward one l evel, then the new range would be 168 to 210 months, and I find that 210 months wou ld not be sufficient i n these circumst ances. We’r e deali ng here with e ight bank robberies in which tell ers ar e put in f

ear of their l ives, and we’re deal ing with a hi story , not counting t

he bank robberi es, of 43 ot her cri minal hi story

points , if a ll of them are count ed, and we’re also deal ing with a s trong t hreat t hat was made from pris on to someone he bel ieved t o be a witness in thi s case. I am going6

to depart one more levelto Level 31, CriminalHistory Category

VI, and this w ill be a ran ge of

188 to 23 5 m onth s. An d I find that . . . to sen tence in that ran ge, esp ecially tow ard the upp er end of it, w ould be the appr opriate sen tenc e fo r M r. Liv ing ston . Thus, the Distri ct Court c onsider ed and rej ected a one l evel upward depar ture and, ther efo re, d id n ot ab use its dis creti on i n im pos ing the tw o lev el up wa rd d epa rture . Further more, the record a s a whole makes cl ear the Distri ct Court’ s reasons for rejecting each lesse r category of crimina l history. Livingston had 2 6 criminal history poi nts, w hich is do ubl e the am oun t nec essa ry to qu alify f or C rimi nal H istor y Cate gor y VI. Moreover, but f

or the appl icat ion of U.S.S. G. § 4A1.1(c), which permit s a maximum of four cri minal hi story

points for cri minal convi ctions involving a sentenc e of 60 days or less, Liv ingsto n w ould have had a total of 43 cr imina l history po ints. H is prior a dult crimin al con viction s includ e dru g po ssessio n w ith inten t to distribu te, burg lary, theft, receiving stolen p roperty, and escape . The D istrict Court judge n oted that Living ston’s crimina l his tory

was one of the most e xtensi ve of any he had seen in hi s 18 ye ars on the bench and that

Livingst on was on probati on and out of j ail only t wo months when he committed t

he eight bank robberi es. The robbe ries took plac e over a shor t peri od of time, wh ich the Distric t Cou rt foun d ind icative o f Liv ingsto n’s like lihood of rec idivism . Wh ile in pri son, Livingston wrote a threatening l ette r to a pot entia l witnes s in the case and made rep eate d th reats to h er b eca use he b eliev ed s he w as c oop erati ng w ith th e go ver nm ent. Based on this evidence fr om the recor d as a whole, t he Distr ict Court

properl y exercised its di sc re tio n w he n i t rejec ted th e le ss er ca teg or y of cr im in al h ist or y.7 VI. For th e r ea so ns outline d, we f in d no ab us e o f d is cr et io n a nd w il l a ff ir m t he two leve l up wa rd d epa rture .

TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Anthony J. Sciri ca Circuit Judge