Opinion ID: 607056
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rai

Text: 30 Rai does not challenge the factual findings but limits his appeal to the extent of departure. A court's departure must be reasonable in light of the standards and policies incorporated in the Sentencing Reform Act and the Guidelines. Id. at 747, 751. We review for abuse of discretion whether the degree of departure was reasonable. United States v. Martinez-Gonzalez, 962 F.2d 874, 875 (9th Cir.1992). 31 The court departed upward four points from an offense level of 13. Rai argues that, at most, a two-point departure was warranted because analogous Guidelines offenses involving more than minimal planning require a two-level increase. See, e.g. U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(b)(1); Martinez-Gonzalez, 962 F.2d at 876. 32 The court's reasoning by analogy to the Guidelines was weak. It explained that grouping the counts of conviction had understated the nature of the offense and attempted to adjust. It did not account for the degree of the increase by explicit reference to other Guidelines sections. Generally, when the circumstances relied upon for departure are proper, a remand is still required if the reasons given for the extent of departure are inadequate. United States v. Cruz-Ventura, 979 F.2d 146, 151 (9th Cir.1992). 33 Because the court did not provide a reasoned explanation of the extent of the departure, Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d at 751, with appropriate analogies to the Guidelines, we vacate the sentence. Upon resentencing, the court should explain any departure by reference to the structure and standards of the Guidelines. In particular, it should consider whether to rely upon the more than minimal planning analogy found in Martinez-Gonzalez to justify a two-level increase or else offer a reasoned explanation for departing further. 2 34 Accordingly, we AFFIRM in all respects except for Rai's sentence, which we VACATE and REMAND.