FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 18, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble Edwa rd Korma n, United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. [ 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. 06- 15951

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 6 5 - CR - J - DH B- J EG 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 N ELSO N V A LD ES, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om t he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 18, 2007) B ef ore B IR C H , B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg es , and K O R M A N , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

N e l s on V a l de s pl e d gui l ty a nd w a s c onvi c t e d of ba nk f r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 4 a n d 2 , a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to 1 0 8 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t, w hi ch consi dera bl y e xcee ded t he G ui del i nes r ange of 41 t o 5 1 m on ths as c a l c ul a t e d by t he P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t , a s w e l l a s the G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 57 t o 7 1 m on ths urged b y the go vernm enton t he basi s of a t w o-l evel cr i m i nal h is to r y c a te g o r y u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 . Va l d e s a r g u e s t h a ti f

t h e s e n t e n c e i s c o n s tru e d a s a d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4A 1. 3, i tm us tbe r e ve r s e d be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o f ol l ow t he procedural re qu i re m ent s f or such a departure und erU . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 3. M oreover, he not e s tha te ve n i f

t he de pa r tur e ha d be e n pr oc e dur a l l y c or r e c t , the hi gh- e nd of th e G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e , e v e n w ith th e u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e , w a s o n ly 7 1 m o n th s . A lte r n a tiv e ly , V a ld e s a r g u e s th a t a n 1 0 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly un re as on abl e und ert he ci rc um st ance s pre se nt ed. S peci fi ca l l y, V al des a rgues that the di stri ctcourti n t hi s c as e w as bi as ed because , i n renderi ng i t s ver di ct , i tre l i ed on the f a c tt ha tt he f

r a ud i nvol ve d c ons i s t e d of c ount e r f e i t i ng c he c ks f

r om t he C l er k o f the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da. W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd be c a us e thi s r e c or d i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pe r m i tt he af fi rm ance of t he se nt ence . If t he di stri ctcourti nt ended t o app l y a n u pw ar d departure und erU . S . S . G § 4 A 1. 3, V al des i s c orre ctt hatthe re qu i si t e proceduresI f a district c ourt finds that a de fenda nt’s criminal history

is not adequate ly

represente d 1 by the Guidelines ra

ng e, and de cides to eng ag e in a departureanalysis under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, the judg e must first expli citly consider thenext criminal hist ory cate g ory and makea deter mination as to whether that new ra ng e is appropriate. United States v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 12 37 , 1 23 9- 40 (1 1th

Cir . 1 99 1) . In p ur

po rtingto gra

nt t heg ov e rnme nt’ s U .S. S.G . § 4A 1. 3 to depar t upwardly

to Categ ory

VI , the district court, a s in United States v. Wi lliams, wholly failed to specifically

consider or

even me ntion the nextcriminal history level, Categ ory

V. Indeed, the district court even neg lected to c onsider the Cate g ory VI rang e itself to deter

mine whether

that cate g ory more a ccurately

represente d Valdes’ criminal history . “As a result of this proce dural fault, the upwa

rd depa rture w as in error and require s remand.”Wil liams, 989 F.2d 1171, 1142 (11th Cir. 1993). Many of theba se s f

or thedis tric t c ourt ’s se ntenc e werea lr e a dy a c c ounte d f

or in 2 c a lc ulatin gtheGuide lin e s rang e and no thi nge xtra ordin ary

a bo ut t hec irc ums tanc e s o f t

his c a se justified this ex treme va

rianc e. See United States v. McVay, 447 F.3d 1348, 1357 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (f inding that a

district court’s imposition of a sentenc e that falls far outside the Guide lines rang e must be supported by extraordinary

circ umstances) . Moreove r, the fa ct that it was the District Court’s chec k that was c ounterfe ited could not support a variance . We see no re ason why fra ud involving the district cour t is any more c ulpable than f

raud involvingany

other indivi du a l or

ins tit uti on . Ind e e d, thejudg e s o f t heMiddleDi stric t of

F lorida werea ll re c us e d in orde r t o avo id a

ny bia s. 3 w er e notfol l ow ed. If

t he courti nt ended t o rel y s ol el y on § 35 53 (a ) t o v ar y 1 up w ar d from t he G ui del i nes, t he re as on s di sc usse d w er e i nadequ at e t o sup po rtan e x tr a o r d in a r y v a r ia n c e to a s e n te n c e o f 1 0 8 m o n th s , w h ic h w a s m o r e th a n d o u b le the hi gh- e nd of

t he c a l c ul a t e d G ui de l i ne s r a nge , a nd s i gni f i c a nt l y , w e l l a bove the G o v ern m en t ’ s reco m m en d ed G u i d el i n es ran g e o f 5 7 -7 1 m o n th s. 2 V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.