FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10390 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 45 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A M U E L M O O R E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 13, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S am uel M oo re appeal s hi s 120 -m on th sent ence for bank rob bery i m po se d2

u p o n r e s e n t e n c i n g . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D M oor e w a s i ndi c t e d f

orc om m i tt i ng ba nk r obbe ry by us e of a da nge r ous w e apon, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2113( a ) a nd ( d) . M oor e pl e d notgui l ty a nd w as foun d g ui l ty by aj ury. A cc ordi ng t o the P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport (“ P S I” ), M oo re ent er ed a bank, sl i d a bag t o the t el l erand t ol d h ert o “ [f ] i l l the bag w i th m one y . I ’ ve gota gun. ” M oor e the n pul l e d hi s s hi r tup t o di s pl a y the gr i p of a n a i rgun. A f

t e robt a i ni ng the m one y a nd l e a vi ng the s c e ne , M oor e l e d pol i c e on a h ig h - s p e e d c h a s e . T he P S I a s s i gne d M oor e f i ve c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s f orthe s e pr i or c o n v ic tio n s : ( 1 ) o n e p o in t f o r“th e f t b y ta k in g ,” w h e r e M o o r e a tte m p te d to c o m m it arm ed robb ery by e nt er i ng a W i nn -D i xi e grocery s t ore w i th w hatappeare d t o b e a ha ndgun a nd de m a ndi ng m one y a nd f orw hi c h he r e c e i ve d a s e nt e nc e of 12 m onths ’ pr oba t i on; ( 2) thr e e poi nt s f ora “ r obbe ry by s udde n s na t c h, ” w he r e he obs truc t e d l a w e nf

or c e m e ntby ba c ki ng hi s c a ri nt o a pol i c e of f i c e r ’ s ve hi c l e a nd att em pt ed t o el ud e pol i ce ; and (3) on e poi ntfor a19 95 conv i ct i on for dri vi ng un der the i nf l ue nc e ( “ D U I ” ) . W i th tw o c r i m i na l hi s t or y poi nt s f orc om m i tt i ng the i ns t a nt o f f e n s e w h ile o n p r o b a tio n , th e P S I a s s ig n e d a c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f I V . W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 27 , the P S I r ec om m ended an adv i sory gu i del i nes3

r a n g e o f 1 0 0 to 1 2 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A thi s i ni t i al se nt enci ng , M oo re obj ec t ed t o the i ncl usi on of on e poi ntfor the 19 95 D U I c on vi ct i on because he had no tbeen repre se nt ed by coun se l . T he di stri ct c our ti ndi c a t e d tha ti tw oul d notc ons i de rthe D U I c onvi c t i on i n c om put i ng M oo re ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core . T hi s s ho ul d h ave r educed M oo re ’ s c ri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory t o I I I , r e s ul t i ng i n a n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge of 87 t o 108 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed an advi sory gu i del i nes r ange of 10 0 t o 1 25 m on ths, w hi ch w as consi st entw i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory I V , and i m po se d a 12 0-m on th sent ence . In M oo re ’ s f

i rs tappeal , thi s C ou rtconcl ud ed: (1) thatthe di stri ctcourthad n o t p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te d M o o r e ’s c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry a s I V , a n d ( 2 ) th a t it c o u ld n o t d e te r m in e w h e th e r , a b s e n t th e c a lc u la tio n e rr o r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld ha ve i m pos e d the s a m e s e nt e nc e . T hi s C our tva c a t e d M oor e ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd re m an d ed w ith in stru ctio n s f o r th e d istrict co u rt to clar ify its ru li n g o n M o o re ’s obj e c t i on t o the D U I poi nti n hi s c r i m i na l hi s t or y s c or e a nd w he the ri ti nt e nde d f or M o o r e ’s s e n te n c e to f

a ll w ith in th e ap p lic a b le a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e o rto const i tut e avari ance fr om the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange. O n re m an d , th e d istrict co u rt co n firm ed th at ith ad su stain ed M o o re ’s obj ec t i on t o the D U I c on vi ct i on . T he di stri ctcourtcl ar i fi ed thati tw as m aki ng an4

upw a r d de pa r tur e i n M oor e ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gory ba s e d on the f a c ttha tthe se ri ou snes s of M oo re ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory w as no tadequat el y r epre se nt ed, as fo l l o w s: [ W ] he n I l ook a ts om e of the unde r l y i ng co n v i ct i ons , the f tby ta k in g in a W in n - D ix ie s to r e w h e r e h e o n ly g o t o n e p o in t, w e g o w ith the pr i ors e nt e nc e gi ve n by a p rev i o u s j udge a s a r ough pr oxy of the s e r i ous ne s s of

the c r i m e . W he n I l ook a tthi s , I thi nk tha t ’ s nota good p r o x y , th a t w a s m o r e s e r io u s th a n a o n e - p o in t o f f e n s e a n d it s h o u ld h av e b een a tw o o r a th ree, th ati n m y m i n d , i t ’ s m o re seri o u s. A nd , l i kew i se , the ot her s nat chi ng i nc id entw as , I thi nk , m ore – w el l , i tgo tthree po i nt s buti tw as a s er i ou s s ort o f in ci dent. . . . It r e a l l y w oul dn’ tbe a va r i a nc e , i tw oul d b e w ha tI w oul d ha ve done be f or e B ooke r : I w oul d ha ve g o n e dow n one poi ntf orthe D U I a nd th en I w o u l d h av e d ep art ed b a c k u p th e sam e p o i n tfo r th e seri o u sn ess of h i s c o n v i c t i o n w i th th e W i n n - D i x i e a n d th e s e r i o u s n e s s w i t h t he s n a t c h i n g a tl e a s tone ortw o p o i n t s . Th a tg e t s h i m b a c k t o th e s a me pl ace he w a s , s o I vi e w i ta s a n upw a r d de pa r tur e ba s e d on the i n ad eq u acy o f [th e] cri m i n al h i st o ry. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o not e d the vi ol e nc e runni ng thr oughoutM oor e ’ s of f e ns e s a nd the s i m i l a r i t i e s be tw e e n M oor e ’ s pr i orW i nn- D i xi e the f tc onvi c t i on a nd the i ns t a nt b an k ro b b ery, as fo l l o w s:

[T ] hi s i s am an w ho thi s i s hi s s ec on d v iol entsortof robb ery. It m ay ha ve been an ai r gun bu tthere w as a gun i nv ol ved, he had a nothe rr obbe ry a ta W i nn- D i xi e s t or e , he ha d a s na t c hi ng i nc i de nt a nd the n he a l s o ba nge d i nt o a nothe rpol i c e m an ’ s car . T ha t ’ s t oo m a ny a c t s of

vi ol e nc e f

orm e t o i m pos e a sen t en ce l e s s tha n the s e nt e nc e I i m pos e d. T he di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed that , i f a n u pw ar d d epar ture und erthe gu i del i nes had been un avai l abl e, i tw ou l d h ave i m po se d the sa m e s ent ence as a post -B oo kerPost-Booker , we review a sentenc e for

rea sonablene ss. United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1 1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2006). A sentence c an be procedurally or substantively

unrea sonable. A sentenc e is proce durally

unrea sonable if “ it is the produc t of a proc edurethat does not follow Booker’s re quirements, re g ardle ss of the ac tual sentenc e,” such as a f ailure to a pply the guideline provisions correctly . I d. at 1185 n.3. Moore raises only a claim of proce dural unrea sonablene ss. 5 va r i a nc e f

r om the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e i m pos e d the 120- m o n th s e n te n c e . M o o r e f ile d th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON M oo re ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n i m po si ng an up w ar d d epar ture i n h i s cri m i n al h i st o ry cat eg o ry. A ft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), a di stri ct c our tm us tc ons ul ta nd c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the de f e nda nt ’ s r a nge unde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd the n i m pos e a r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e c ons i de r i ng the f a c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . A l though B ooke rha s r e nde r e d the gui de l i ne s r a nge a dvi s or y , the corr ec tappl i ca t i on of the i nd i vi du al gu i del i ne prov i si on s i s obl i gat ory. U ni t ed St a t e s v . Br e h m, 4 4 2 F. 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th Ci r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , ___U . S. ___ , 1 2 7 S. C t . 45 7 (20 06 ). 1 U nde rU . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3, the di s tr i c tc our tm a y de pa r tupw a r ds i n the cr im in al h isto ry ca teg o ry if “reliab le in fo rm atio n in d icates th at th e d ef en d an t’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory s ubs t a nt i a l l y unde r - r e pr e s e nt s the s e r i ous ne s s of theWe reviewa district cour t’s decision to depa

rt under U .S.S.G. § 4A1.3 for abuseof 2 discretion. United States v. Hernande z, 160 F.3d 661, 668 (11th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that pre -B ooker standa rds of review apply

to reviewof guideline calculations). In so doing, w e review the district cour t’s le g al determinatio n th at it may re ly on a pa rticula r f a c tor a s a ba sis fo r depa

rt uredeno vo , it s fac tual finding s for c lear

error and theextent of the depar ture for rea sonablene ss. See United States v. Weaver, 920 F .2d 1570, 1573 (11th Cir. 1991). 6 defe nd ant ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory or the l i kel i ho od thatthe defendantw i l l com m i tother c r im e s . . . .” U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 ( a ) ( 1 ) . “[ A ]n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e m a y b e ap p r o p r ia te w here the defendanthad p re vi ou sl y r ec ei ved an extre m el y l eni entse nt ence for a s e r i ous of

f e ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 120 F . 3d 227, 232 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d e m p h a s is o m itte d ) ; s e e a ls o U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 , c m t. b a c k g r o u n d ( n o tin g th a t e x tr e m e ly le n ie n t p a s t s e n te n c e s m a y b e ap p r o p r ia te ly c ons i de r e d) . I n a ddi t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tm a y c ons i de rthe s i m i l a r i ty of the curr entoffe nse t o p ri or offe nses i n d ec i di ng w hether t o i m po se a § 4A 1. 3 u pw ar d departure. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C as tri l l on -G on za l ez , 77 F . 3d 40 3, 40 7 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). 2 H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e p a r tin g o n th e b a s is th a t M o o r e ’s c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry u n d e r - r e p r e s e n te d th e s e r io u s n e s s o f h is c r im in a l h is to ry . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e f a c t th a t M o o r e r e c e iv e d o n ly tw e l ve m onths ’ pr oba t i on f orthe W i nn- D i xi e the f

tof f e ns e , a s e nt e nc e tha tdi d not ad eq u at el y refl ectth e seri o u sn ess o f th ato ffen se. T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so c ons i de r e d s i m i l a r i t i e s be tw e e n the i ns t a ntba nk r obbe ry a nd M oor e ’ s pr i orAt sentenc ing a nd resentencing , Moore did not dispute the factual ac curacy of criminal 3 history portion of his PS I . See United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that undisputed factual matter s in the PS Iaredeeme d admitted and may be re lied upon by the district court in determining thedefendant’s sentence) ; United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832- 34 (11th Cir. 2006) (c oncludingthat undisputed fac ts in the PS Irelating to the defendant’s prior c onvictions could be used to enha nce thedefendant’s sentence) . 7 o f f e n s e s . B o th p r io ro f

f e n s e s in v o lv e d v io le n t th e f t c r im e s . T h e W in n - D ix ie o f f e n s e in v o lv e d a n a tte m p te d r o b b e ry in w h ic h M o o r e f la s h e d w h a t ap p e a r e d to b e a g u n . T h e r o b b e ry “b y s n a tc h ” in v o lv e d a n a tte m p t to e lu d e p o lic e . B oth the l e ni e nc y of

the s e nt e nc e s f

orpr i orof

f e ns e s a nd the s i m i l a r i ty of the p r io ro f f e n s e s a r e ap p r o p r ia te f

a c to r s to c o n s id e rin d e c id in g to d e p a r t. F ur the r m or e , the s e f

a c t or s w e r e a de qua t e l y s uppor t e d by the r e c or d. F i na l l y , the 3 d e g r e e o f th e d e p a r tu r e – f

r o m a c a te g o ry I I I to a c a te g o ry I V – is n o t u n r e a s o n a b le u n d er th e ci rcu m st an ces. M oo re al so cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s upw ar d d epar ture c on st i tut ed d o u b le c o u n tin g p r o h ib ite d b y U n ite d S ta te s v . H u n e r la c h , 2 5 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). U nd erH un er l ac h, a di stri ctcourtm ay no tm ake a n u pw ar d d epar ture i n the c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory f orc r i m i na l c onduc ttha tw a s c ons i de r e d r e l e va nt cond ucti n cal cul at i ng the defendant ’ s off ense l evel . 25 8 F . 3d at12 86 -87. H er e, M oo re ’ s upw ar d d epar ture w as no tbase d o n rel evantcond uctbu ton pastcr i m i nal c o n d u c t. T h e r e f

o r e , H u n e r la c h is in ap p lic a b le . F o ra ll th e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its8

d is c r e tio n in d e p a r tin g u p w a r d u n d e r§ 4 A 1 .3 a n d th a t M o o r e ’s 1 2 0 - m o n th se nt ence i s notun re as on abl e. AF F I RME D.