Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30518 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. B O B B YT U G G L E , J R ., 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 ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R

- 50- 1
B ef ore D eM O S S , P R A D O , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * B obbyT u ggl e, Jr. , app eal s t h e 78-m on t h sentence i m posedby the di st ri ct c our tf oll ow i ng hi s gui l t y- pl ea convi c t i on f orpos se ss i on o f

a f i r ear m by a c o n v ic te dfe lo n . T u g g le a r g u e s th a tth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db o th p r o c e d u r a lly an d su bstantivel y by u pw ardl y dep art i n g based on the u n derrepresentati on of hi s c r i m i nalhi st or y c at ego r y. B ecau se Tu ggl e argu es f or t h e f i rstt i m e on ap pea l t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt fail e d t o pr o vi de s uf

f i c i e nt o r al r e as o ns f

o rt he de pa r t ur e a nd thati tpr o vi de d no United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 1, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30518 Document: 00511037790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2010N o. 09- 30518

2 w r itt e n r e a s o n s s u p p o r tin gth e d e p a r tu r e , w e re v ie w th e s e a r g u m e n ts fo rp la in e r r o r . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3d 3 5 7 , 3 6 1 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 3 0 S
. C t. 1 9 2 (2 0 0 9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 505 F. 3d 389, 394 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 128 S. C t . 2 959 ( 200 8)
. A tsentenci n g, t h e di st ri ct c our ts t at ed t hati thad c ons i der ed t he fac t or s i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) and t hatan upw ar d depart ure w as w ar r ant ed base d on Tu ggl e’ s ext ens ive c r i m i nalhi st or y. T h e di st ri ctcourtcit ed h i s pri or of fen ses, t h e of

fen ses f or w h ich h e h a d n ot receivedan y cri m i n alhi st ory poi n t s, an d h i s patt ern of r e ci divi sm . B ecau se T u g g le h a da c r im in a l h is to r yca te g o r yo f V I, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly con sider edw h a t i n crem en tal i n crea se in h i s off en se leve lw o u l dcorre sp on dto an app ropri ate s en t en ci n gr a n g e. Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s w rit t en st atem en tof reasons i n di cat ed that t h e courtdep ar te d u n der U
. S
. Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es § 4A1. 3 ( 20 08 ) , duet o t he i nad e qua c y o f Tugg l e ’ s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y c at e go r y and t hatat w o - l e ve li nc r e as e i n hi s of fen se l e ve lw as w ar r ant e d b as e d o n t he s e r io u s n e s s o f h is cr im in a l h is to r ya n dth e lik e l i h o o d t h a t h e w o u ldco m m it ad di t i on alcr i m es. W e f i n d n o procedu ralerr or, pl ai n or ot h erw i se, w i t h res pect t o t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s u p w a r dd e p a r tu r e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Z u n iga - Peralta , 4 4 2 F .3d 3 4 5 , 3 4 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T u g g le a ls o a r g u e s th a t t h e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis d is p r o p o r tio n a te to h is o f fe ns e b e c aus e t he r e i s no e vi dence to s ugg e s tt hathe w as e nga ge d i n a ny w rong d oi n g, ot h er th an carryi n g t h e f i rearm , w h en h e w as arres t ed an d becau se th e u n d erlyingfelon y u sed to su p p ort th e fel on in p oss ess i on ch a rg e w a s n ot a vi ol en tfel on y, bu trat h er w as a dru g of fen se. T u ggl e’ s argu m en t s are m i spl aced b e c a u s e t h e y a d d r e s s o n l y h i s c u r r e n t o f fe n s e r a t h e r t h a n h i s h i s t o r y and cha ract eri st i cs or th e need to p rot ectthe pu bl i c, w h i ch w ere ci t ed by t h e di st ri ct c o u r t in s u p p o r t o f its d e p a r tu r e . S ee § 35 53 ( a) ( 1) & ( 2)
. Al t ho ught he c ur r e nt of fen se di d n oti n volve vi ol en ce, T u ggl e’ s convic t i on s f or posses si on of

a f i rearm by a con vi ct ed fel on an d f or drug of

fen ses are t h e t yp es of convic t i on s t h at “pose a n o b viou s d a n ge r to society. ” S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L ee , 35 8 F
. 3 d31 5 , 32 9 ( 5 th Case: 09-30518 Document: 00511037790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2010N o. 09- 30518

3 Ci r . 2 00 4)
. H i s c o nvi c t i o ns f o rpo s s e s s i ng a s t o l e n f i r e ar m a nd a i di ng e s c ap e f rom an arm ed robbery i n di ca te a r isk of vi ol en ce. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e di st ri ct c o ur t w as f

r e e t o c o ns i de r t he t w o pr i o rc o nvi c t i o ns f o rw hi c h Tug gl e r e c e ive d no c r im in a l h is to r yp o in ts , see§ 4A1. 3( a) ( 2) (A) , a nd the r e c o r d c l e ar l y s upp o r t s t he cou rt’ s f i n d i n g th a t T u gg l e ha d m a d e no a ttem p t to ch a n ge h i s be h a vior d esp i te h i s pri or c on vi ct i on s. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ct court di d not abu se i t s di scr et i on by i m posi n g a tw o- l evelup w ard d epa rt u re based on t h e un derrepresentati on of T u g g le ’ s cr im in a l h is to r yca te g o r y . S eeZ u n iga -Per a lta , 4 4 2 F .3 da t 3 4 7 ; Un i t ed S ta tes v. S m ith , 4 1 7 F .3d 4 8 3 , 4 9 2 -9 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-30518 Document: 00511037790 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2010