P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10638 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. ABDUSH AKBAR D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R
- 66- 1 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P RA D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * P u rsuan tt o a pl ea agreem en t , Abd u sh A kb ar pl ead ed gu i l t y t o fal se i m per so nat i on o f

an of f i c er or em pl oye e of t he U ni t ed St at es , i n vi ol at i on o f 18 U . S . C . § 9 12 . H e a ppe al s t he s e nt e nc e o f 3 6 m o nt hs i m po s e d b y t he di s t r i ct c o u r t. A k b a ra r g u e s t h a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e dinre ly in go n u n c o u n te d , st a le convic t i on s to d e p a rtup w ard f rom t h e gu i del i n es r an ge an d that th e di st ri ct c o u r t e r r e dind e te r m in in gth e e x te n t o f th e d e p a r tu r e . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D May 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10638

2 An app e l l at e c o ur t ’ s revi ew o f as e nt e nc e m us ts t ar tw i t h t he i s s ue w het hert he di st r i c tc our t c om m i t t ed any “ si gni f i c ant pro c edur aler r or , s uch as fail i ng t o c al c ul at e (o ri m pr o pe r ly c al c ul at i ng) t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e , t r e at i ng t he G u id e li n e s as m an da t ory, fai l i n g t o consi der t h e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3553 ( a) fact ors, s e le c tin gas e n te n c e b a s e do n cle a r lye r r o n e o u s fa c ts , o rfa ilin gto a d e q u a te ly ex p l a i n the ch ose n sen ten ce.” G a ll v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). If t h e sentenci n g deci si on i s p ro ce d u ral ly soun d, t h e app el l ate c ou rtt h en con sider s “t he s ubst ant ive r eas onabl enes s of t he s ent enc e i m pos ed underan a b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio ns ta n d a r d .”Uni t e d St at es v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F. 3d 751, 7 6 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). R eason ableness r evi ew , i n t h e context of a gu i del i n es depa rt u re, requi res t hi s c o ur tt o e va l uat e bo t h “t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o de pa r tupwar dly and th e ex ten t of

tha t de p a rtu re fo ra b u se o f d i scre ti on . ” Uni t e d S t at e sv. Z u n iga -Per a lta , 4 42 F. 3d3 45 , 3 47 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 6) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) . H o w e ve r , w he n, a s he r e , ade fe nda n tfai l s t o o bj e c tt o t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s de ci si on t o dep artup w ardl y i n t h e di st ri ctcourt , revi ew i s f or p l a i n er r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hernan d ez , 485 F . 3d270 , 272
- 73 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). I n or dert o e st abl i sh pl ai n er r or , A k b a r m u st sh ow t hat( 1) t her e i s an error , ( 2) t h at i s cl ear or obvious, an d ( 3) t h at af fect s h i s sub sta n tia l ri gh t s. Uni t e d S t at e sv . O lano , 507 U . S . 725 , 731
- 37 (1993). I f t h ese fact ors are e s ta b lis h e d , th e d e c is io n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o r is w ith in th e s o u n dd is c r e tio n o f th is court, w h i ch w i l l n ot be exerci sed u n l ess t h e error seri ou sly af fect s th e fai rness, in te g r ity , o rp u b licre p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . Id . a t 7 3 6 . T h e s e n te n c in gco u r t m a yd e p a r t fr o m th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e “ [i]f r e lia b le i n f orm ati on i n di cat es th a t t h e defen da n t ’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory cat egory subs t ant i al ly under
- r epr es ent s t he s er i ous nes s of t he def

end ant ’ s c r i m i nal h i s t o r yo rt h e li k e l ih o o dt h a tt h e d e fe n d a n twi l lc o mm i to t h e rc r i me s . ” U. S . S . G.N o. 08- 10638

3 § 4A 1. 3. If

a sentence w as i m posedoutsi de the peri od w i t h i n w h i ch sentences are coun t ed i n deter m i n i n g t h e cr i m i n alhi st ory cat egory, th e courtm ay co nsi der

“ e vi de nce of

s i m i l ar , o rs e r i o us di s s i m i l ar , c r i m i nalc o nduc t” i n de t e r m i ni ng w h eth er a n u p w a rdde p a rtu re is w a rra n tedu n d er § 4 A 1 . 3 . § 4A 1 . 2 , com m en t. (n .8 ). Akbarar gue s t hathi s st al e c o nvic t i o ns m ayno tb e c o ns i de r e d b e c aus e t he c o nvic t i o ns ar e ne i t he r “ s e r i o us ” no r“ s i m i l ar” t o t he i ns t anto f fe ns e w i t hi n t he m eani ng o f § 4A1. 2 , c o m m e nt . (n. 8 ) . The Gui d e l i ne s d o no t d e f i ne w hat c o n s tit u te s “s e r io u s ” c r i m i n a l co n d u c t, n o rh a s th is co u r t d o n e s o . S ee Un i t ed St at e sv . Es t rada , 3 1 F. App’ x 15 8, * 1 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 1) . Give n t he l ac k o f a ny g u id a n c e fr o m th is c o u r to n w h a t c o n s tit u te s s e r io u s cr im in a l co n d u c t in th is c o n te x t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ldn o t h a v e co m m itt e dp la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S tate s v. G arci a-R od rigu ez , 4 1 5 F. 3 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 6 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) (whe r e l aw w as u n se ttled , e rr o r c o u ldn o t b e p la in). M or eo ver , t he di st r i c tcour taddres se d the st al e c onvi c t i ons i n t he c ont ext of a perm i ssibl e basi s f or depa rt u re: t h at Akb ar’gu i del i n es r an ge di d n otcapture h i s li kelih ood of

rec i divi sm . A kb ar ha s theref ore fai l ed t o sh ow tha tthe d i st ri ct c o u r t p la in lye r r e dinre ly in go n h is s ta le co n v ic tio n s to u p w a r d lyd e p a r t. S ee O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 7 3 1 -3 7 . A kb ar al so ch al l en ges the extent of the u pw ard dep art u re. In t h e di st ri ct court, A kb ar di d not obj ect t o t h e extent of t h e dep art u re; t h eref ore, revi ew i s f

or p la in e r r o r . S ee i d. Th e ext entof t he depar t uref

r om a g ui deli nes r ange o f 15- 21 m on t h s t o a sentence of 36 m on t h s of

i m pri sonm en ti s w el lw i t h i n t h e rang e of d e p a r tu r e s th is co u r t h a s u p h e ld . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 417 F. 3d 483, 492- 93 & n. 40 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (uph ol di ng depar t ure from 41 m ont hs t o 1 20 m o nt hs , a n i nc r e as e o f 7 9 m o nt hs and nea r ly 30 0% , and c i t i ng c as e s uph o l di ng e v e n g re a te r d e p a rtu re s); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 4 4 4 F . 3 d43 0 , 43 3 , 44 2 -43 ( 5 th C i r . 2006) (uph ol di ng depar t uref r om gui deli nes r ange o f 46- 57 m ont hs t o 1 20N o. 08- 10638

4 m o n th s , am o r e th a n 2 0 0 % in c r e a s e ). A k b a rh a s n o t s h o w n p l a in e r r o r . S ee O lano , 507 U . S. at731- 37. AF F I RMED.