Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30518

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BOBBY TUGGLE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:07-CR-50-1

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bobby Tuggle, Jr., appeals the 78-month sentence imposed by the district

court following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon. Tuggle argues that the district court erred both procedurally

and substantively by upwardly departing based on the underrepresentation of

his criminal history category.

Because Tuggle argues for the first time on appeal that the district court

failed to provide sufficient oral reasons for the departure and that it provided no

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 1, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-30518 Document: 00511037790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2010
No. 09-30518

2

written reasons supporting the departure, we review these arguments for plain

error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 394

(5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008). At sentencing, the district

court stated that it had considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that an

upward departure was warranted based on Tuggle’s extensive criminal history.

The district court cited his prior offenses, the offenses for which he had not

received any criminal history points, and his pattern of recidivism. Because

Tuggle had a criminal history category of VI, the district court properly

considered what incremental increase in his offense level would correspond to

an appropriate sentencing range. The district court’s written statement of

reasons indicated that the court departed under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

§ 4A1.3 (2008), due to the inadequacy of Tuggle’s criminal history category and

that a two-level increase in his offense level was warranted based on the

seriousness of his criminal history and the likelihood that he would commit

additional crimes. We find no procedural error, plain or otherwise, with respect

to the district court’s upward departure. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta,

442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2006).

Tuggle also argues that the sentence imposed is disproportionate to his

offense because there is no evidence to suggest that he was engaged in any

wrong doing, other than carrying the firearm, when he was arrested and because

the underlying felony used to support the felon in possession charge was not a

violent felony, but rather was a drug offense. Tuggle’s arguments are misplaced

because they address only his current offense rather than his history and

characteristics or the need to protect the public, which were cited by the district

court in support of its departure. See § 3553(a)(1) & (2). Although the current

offense did not involve violence, Tuggle’s convictions for possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon and for drug offenses are the types of convictions that “pose

an obvious danger to society.” See United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 329 (5th

Case: 09-30518 Document: 00511037790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2010
No. 09-30518

3

Cir. 2004). His convictions for possessing a stolen firearm and aiding escape

from an armed robbery indicate a risk of violence. Additionally, the district

court was free to consider the two prior convictions for which Tuggle received no

criminal history points, see § 4A1.3(a)(2)(A), and the record clearly supports the

court’s finding that Tuggle had made no attempt to change his behavior despite

his prior convictions. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion

by imposing a two-level upward departure based on the underrepresentation of

Tuggle’s criminal history category. See Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 347; United

States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-30518 Document: 00511037790 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2010