FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1545 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 07-00015 -CR- 001-W DO -5 UNITED STAT ES OFAMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ED DI E M AE CL EMO NS , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 21, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant E ddie Mae Clem ons appeals th e 78-m onth sentence im pose d f oll ow ing he r ple a of

gui lty to tw o c ount s of

bank f ra ud, in vio latio n of2

18 U . S. C. § 13 44, and o ne c ount of f al se use of

asoc ia l se curi ty

c ar d, in vio latio n o f 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 8 . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Cl em ons w as ind ic te d on57 c ount s of bank f ra ud, one c ount

of f al se use of a soc ia l se curi ty

c ar d, and o ne c ount

of a ggr av at ed

ide nti ty the ft . I n e xc hange f

or he r gui lty ple a, the gov er

nm en t a gr ee d to dis m iss 56 c ount s of the ind ic tm en t. T he PS I ca lc ulate d th e advis or y gui de lin e range to be 27 t o 33 m onths; Cl em ons agreed w ith the gu idelines calculation. The PSI noted that th e sentencing court could cons ider an upwar d departure under U .S .S .G . § 4A 1.3 if it deter m ined that the c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y did not a de quate ly

r ef le ct the se ri ousn es s of Clem ons’s past cr im inal record or the likelihood th at she would com m it other crim es. Much of Clem ons’s 40-plus-y ear record of crim inal acts involv ed be havio r sim ilar to the c ondu ct a t i ssu e in this c as e; m any of the se pr ior co nvi ct ion s r ec ei ve d no c ri m ina l hi sto ry poi nts . T he P SI a lso not ed that the se nte nc ing c ourt c oul d de part upw ar d un de r U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 21 t o r ef le ct the actual seriousness of the offense based on condu ct dism issed as part of the plea agreem ent. C lem ons ob

j ected that her c rim inal histo ry wa s adequately

ref lected and war ranted no upward departure. At the sentencing hearing, the governm ent argued that Clem ons’s cr im inal histo ry under the guid elines failed to ref lect adequately

her extensive crim inal3

his tor y ; the num

be r of c onvi ct ion s C le m ons ha d f ro m a ge 21 t o he r pr es en t a ge of 63 -- m ost of which incurred sentences of no m ore than 30 day s -- f ailed to reflec t the seriousness of her c rim inal condu ct and, a bsent an up ward departure, provided ins uf fi ci en t punis hm en t. C le m ons ar gue d th at the gui de lin e range of

27 t o 33 m onths w as appr opr iate and r ea sona ble und er the 18 U . S. C. § 35 53 f

ac tor s, takin g int o a cc ount

he r ag e an d m ed ic al pr obl em s. The sentencing court noted that Clem ons had b een sentenced no few er that 54 t im es f

or vari ous of

fe nse s, m ost

of w hic h in vol ve d ba d c he ck s and the ft by de ce pti on and f

ra ud. A ft er c onsi de ri ng C le m ons’ s ba ck gr ound and e xte nsi ve pr ior record, the sentencing court conclu ded that Clem ons’s cr im inal histo ry category subs tanti al ly

und er -r ep re se nte d th e se ri ousn es s of he r cr im ina l hi sto ry

and the likeliho od that sh e w ouldcom m it other crim es. The c ourt determ ined that an inc re as e of

e igh t l ev el s - - to a

tot al of fe nse le ve l of

19 - - w as appr opr iate . T his y ie ld eda gu id el in e ran ge of 6 3 t o 7 8 m on th s. T he se nte nc ing c ourt a lso c onsi de re d th e se ct ion355 3 f ac tor s and concluded th at those factors supported an enhanced sentence. O f particular concern to the sentencing court was the need to cra ft a sentence that afforded adequate deterr ence to cr im inal condu ct, protected the publi c fr om further c rim esThe sentenc ing court failed to e licit objec tions a fter the sentenc e was imposed as is r equire d by * Un ite d St ate s v . Jone s, 89 9 F. 2d 10 97 , 1 10 2 ( 11 Cir . 1 99 0) , o ve rr ule d in pa rt on oth e r gro un ds , th United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 ( 11 Cir. 1993). In the us ual case, when the district court th fails to follow the mandate of Jones, this C ourt will vacat e t h e s entence and r emand to allow the parties a n opportunity

to p re s en t their objec tions. I d. at 1103. The pr ocedur e outlined in J ones se rv e s th e du a l pu

rp os e of a llo wi ngthe dis tr ic t c ourt to c or re c t a se nte nc inge rr or

on the sp ot a nd to guide appe llate re view. See United States v. Cruz, 946 F .2d 122, 124 n.1 (11 Cir. 1991). When, th howeve r, the re cord on a

ppeal is suffic ient to enable r eview, r emand se rves no pur pose. See id. The objec tions to sentence r aised in Clemons’s appe al we re objections first ra ised by Cle m o n s i n re s p o nse to the PSIand ag ain at the se ntencinghear ing. Clemons identifies no additional objections she would make should this C ourt rema nd. Be cause the arguments raised on appea l are sufficie ntly

develope d in the rec ord, no re mand is require d. 4 by Cl em ons, and r ef

le ct ed the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse s and Cl em ons’ s hi sto ry

and c hara ct er ist ic s. Ase nte nc e of 78 m onths w as im

pose d. * Cl em ons m ai nta ins that the se nte nc ing c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n and im posed an un reasonable sentence when, pursuant to U.S .S .G . § 4A 1.3, it departed upwards fr om

the advisory

range based on the inadequacy of the crim inal histo ry category . Clem ons argues that th e sentencing court’ s focus on the nu m ber of her prior offenses -- and not th e nature of those m ostlypetty prior financial offe nses -- wa s contrary

to the com

m entary to that section which states, in relevant part, that in determ ining an upwar d departure fr om Crim inal History

Category VI , “ the court shou ld c onsi de r that the na tur e of the pr ior of fe nse s r athe r than si m

ply the ir num ber is often m ore indicative of the seriousness of the defendant’s c rim inal re co rd . ” U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3, c om m en t. ( n. 2( B) ). C le m ons al so arg ue s th at the sentencing cou rt overem

phasized the 18 U.S .C. § 3553 (a) factors of dete rrence5

and pub lic protection and paidscant attention to o ther considerations, such as Cl em on s’s ag e an d h eal th . W e re view a district court’ s decision to depart upwar dly from the guidelin es range f or an a buse -o f- dis cr et ion . U nit ed S tate s v. Ma glu ta , 418 F . 3d 1 166, 118 4 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . W e re vie waf ina l se nte nc e fo r re as ona

ble ne ss i n th e lig ht o f the 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s. U nit ed

S tate s v. W ini nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . And tha t r ea sona ble ne ss r ev ie wr equir es us t o a ppl y ahig hly de fe re nti al abuse of

dis cr et ionstandard . S ee G al l v. U nit ed S tate s, 128 S . Ct . 586 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . Th e r ec o rds up p o rt s fu l l y th e s en t en ci n g co u rt ’s fi n d i n g th atCl emo n s ’s cri m in al hi st ory

an d t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s warran te d a n upwa rdde pa rtu re. As the sentencing court noted, Clem ons was sentenced 54 tim es -- in som e case s on m ultip le acc ount s -- over a 42-y ear period. Many

of these sentences involv ed of fe nse s si m ilar to the c harg es to w hic h sh e ple d gu ilty in the ins tant c as e. T he s en t en ci n g co u rtfo cu s edb o th o nth e s ub s t an ce o f t h e c o n v i ct i o n s i nCl emo n s ’s crim inal histo ry

and the shear volum e of convictions. And it noted also th at brief periods of incarcer ation im posed in the past had failed to deter Clem ons’s cr im inal be havio r. C le m ons’ s 42 -y ear pa tte rnof sim ilar fi nanc ia l c ri m es w as not ad equa te ly

r ep re se nte d inac ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y of V I. T he r ec or d su

ppor ts6

an upward departure; and the m agnitud e of the departure wa s reasonable. See United States v. D ixon , 71 F. 3d 38 0, 381 (11 Cir. 1995). th T he se nte nc ing c ourt a cknow le dge d th at it ha d c onsi de re d th e se ct ion 3553 (a ) fa ct or s and C le m ons’ s c hara ct er ist ic s inde te rm ini ng h er se nte nc e; it spok e spe ci fi ca lly

about the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s of de te rr en ce , pr ote ct ionof the publ ic f ro m f urthe r cr im es by

Cl em ons, and the ne ed

f or ase nte nc e that r ef

le ct s the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse . N o r equir em en t e xis ts tha t the se nt en ci ng co ur t m en ti on all of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Sc ott , 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) . A nd the w ei ght a cc or de d to the th section 355 3(a) f

actors is within the sentencing court’s discretion. See United St at es v. A m ed eo , 487 F . 3d 8 23, 832 ( 11 Ci r. ), c er t. de nie d, 128 S . Ct . 671 th (2 007) . A s th e party

c ha lle ngi ng the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f the se nte nc e, Cl em ons be ar s th e bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e im pose d w as unr ea sona

ble in the lig ht o f the r ec or d and the se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s, se e U nit ed

S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F. 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) ; sh e fa ile d to do s o. th AFFIR MED.