## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 13 77

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. Larry Hus to n, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 11 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

30 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Larry Hus to n pl ed gu i l t y to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in
vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g ) ( 1)

. The di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d up ward fro m th e 1
Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.) r an ge an d se nt en ced
Hus to n t o 7 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Hu st on ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, an d we a ffi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.I.

On Decem

be r 7, 20 08
, a po li ce of

fic er sa w Hus to n carr y in g a cam ou fla ge gu n

cas e. The of

fic er reco gn iz ed Hus to n and su sp ect ed th at he m ig ht be a fel on

. Late r, aft er th e of

fic er ha d co nf

irmed hi s su sp ic io n, Hus to n was qu es ti on ed a t t h e po li ce
st at io n an d co ns en te d to a se arch of hi s res id en ce. Po li ce fo un d th ree fir earm s du rin g th e se arch

. Hus to n m is ta ke nl y be li ev ed hi s gu n rig ht s ha d be en res to red
, al on g wit h
hi s v ot in g ri gh ts . Hus to n p le d g ui lt y to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

.

The pr es en te nc e rep or t calc ul at ed Hus to n’s offe ns e le ve l to be 19 an d pl aced
hi m in cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y V. The ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e was 57 to 71 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. A t t he sen te nc in g hea rin g, th e go ve rn m en t argu ed
fo r an up ward de pa rtu re ba se d on Hus to n’s un sc or ed cri m in al hi st or y , un de r U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .3. Hus to n arg ue d fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e. Sp eci fic al ly, Hus to n arg ue d th at th e fo ll owi ng fact s su pp or te d a do wnwar d va ria nc e: hi s be li ef th at hi s gu n rig ht s ha d
be en res to red ; th e f

a c t t h a t he ha d gu ns on ly fo r hu nt in g; hi s effo rts to as si st in
reb ui ld in g aft er Hur ric an e Katr in a in New Orle an s, Lou is ia na , an d flo od in g in Ced ar Rap id s, Io wa; an d th e 18 y ears th at ha d el ap se d be twee n hi s co nv ic ti on fo r bu rg la ry ,

a vi ol en t fel on y , an d hi s cu rren t co nv ic ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d up ward on e cri m in al hi st or y c a t eg or y , pl aci ng Hus to n in cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y VI. The
Gui de li ne s ran ge was th en 63 to 78 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

s e n t e n c e d Hus to n to a 78 -m on th te rm of im pr is on m en t. Hus to n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt’s dec is io n to de pa rt up ward
, as well as it s de ci si on to de ny hi s requ es t fo r a d own ward va ria nc e, was in erro r.

II.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to im po se a n up ward de pa rtu re fo r

a b u s e o f d is cret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 64 8 F.3 d 94 0, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ).

“ [A] di st ric t co ur t m ay im po se an up ward de pa rtu re ‘if rel ia bl e in fo rm at io n in di cat es

-2

-th at th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y su bs ta nt ia l l y un de r-re pr es en ts th e

se rio us ne ss of t h e d e f

e n da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y or th e li ke li ho od th at th e de fen da nt wil l co mm i t o t h e r cri m es .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .3(a )(1 )). “ W he n

co nt em pl at in g an d st ru ct ur in g su ch a de pa rtu re , the dis tr ic t co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er bo th
th e na tu re an d ex te nt of a de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y .” Uni te d St at es v. W al ki ng Eag le
, 55 3 F.3 d 65 4, 65 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hack er, 45 0 F.3 d
80 8, 8 12 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

Hus to n ha d be e n as se ss ed twel ve cri m in al hi st or y po in ts , pl aci ng hi m in
cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y V. The co ur t no te d th at “ th ere i s s u bs ta nt ia l un sc or ed
cri m in al his tor

y , ” in cl ud in g co ns pi racy to co m m it bu rg la ry , op erat in g a m ot or ve hi cl e wit ho ut th e own er’s co ns en t, fo rg ery, t h eft
, es cap e fro m cu st od y , an d pu bl ic
in to xi cat io n. The c ou rt c on cl ud ed :

I th in k Mr. Teig ’s po in t ab ou t un sc or ed cri m in al hi st or y is a su bs ta nt ia l
arg um en t. I fin d th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y is un de rs co red

. I fin d th at he h a s a hi gh li ke li ho od to reci di va te ba se d on hi s pr io r cri m in al hi st o r y, hi s al co ho l is su es th at he ha s no t co m e to gr ip s wit h, hi s un wil li ng ne ss to co nf or m hi s be ha vi or to co ur t or de rs or to au th or it y , le ni en t se nt en ces

an d tre at m en ts ha ve no t de te rred hi m , an d hi s ap pa ren t di sr es pe ct fo r th e la w.

Sen te nc in g Tr. 1 9- 20

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc re t i o n i n de pa rti ng
up ward in th is cas e. A de ci si on to de pa rt up ward m ay co ns ti tu te an a b u s e of
di sc ret io n whe n, fo r ex am pl e, th e d i s t r i ct co ur t de pa rts up ward m ul ti pl e le ve ls
wit ho ut su ffi ci en t ex pl an at io n. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Azu re, 53 6 F.3 d 92 2, 93 2 (8 th Cir

. 20 08 ). Here, in con tra st , th e di st ric t co ur t d ep art ed up ward on ly one lev el
aft er ex pl ai ni ng th at th e de fen da nt ’s un sc or ed cri m in al hi st or y le d th e co ur t to be li ev e th at he was li ke ly to reci di va te

. Hus to n’s cri m in al hi st or y , as he ad m it s, is “ le ng th y ”

-3

-an d “ su bs ta nt ia l.” Sen te nc in g Tr. 9. The de ci si on to de pa rt up ward was reas on ab le
,

su pp or te d b y

th e rec or d, an d wi th in th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d is cret io n.

Hus to n al so arg ue s th at be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s req ue st fo r a do wnwar d va r i a n c e hi s res ul ti ng se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. “ W e wil l

no t rev ers e a se nt en c e as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ab se nt a sh owi ng of ab us e of
di sc ret io n by th e di st ric t co ur t.” Uni te d St at es v. San -Mi gu el
, 63 4 F.3 d 47 1, 47 5 (8 th
Ci r. 20 11 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers on ly

ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t ne ve rth el es s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t

. . . . ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo ne s, 5 09 F.3d 91 1, 9 13 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) ).

Hus to n co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d not gi ve en ou gh weig ht to m it ig at in g fact or s an d ov er-e m

ph as iz ed hi s ol de r cri m in al hi st or y rat he r th an fo cu si ng on hi s

m or e rece nt cri m in al hi st or y

. W e di sa gr ee. The se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt de m on st rat es
t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t was well aware of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng Hus to n ’s
fir earm po ss es si on , in cl ud in g hi s m is ta ke n be li ef th at hi s gu n rig ht s ha d be en res to red

an d hi s fu ll cri m in al hi st or y. Th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ev al ua ti on of th es e fact s

res ul te d in a se nt en ce di ffer en t fro m th at whi ch Hus to n ha d h o p e d f o r do es no t

co ns ti tu te an ab us e of di sc ret io n. “ [I]t w i l l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t s en te nc e—wh et he r wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w t he ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s

ran ge —as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Garde ll in i, 54 5 F.3d 10 89
, 10 90 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 )). Thi s i s n ot th at cas e.

III.

The jud gm en t an d s en te nc e are affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-