Opinion ID: 3019108
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Henry’s Classification as a Career Offender1

Text: On appeal, Henry challenges his placement in the career offender category pursuant to § 4B1.1 on the ground that one of the predicate convictions was both “relatively minor” and remote in time, and, therefore, the career offender designation overstates the seriousness of Henry’s criminal history. The District Court has discretion to depart downward in offense level and criminal history category where a career offender's formal criminal history misrepresents the defendant's actual criminal past and probability of recidivism. United States v. Shoupe, 35 F.3d 835, 839 (3d Cir. 1994). The predicate offense in question consists of the following: On July 23, 1994, Henry was seen sitting naked in the middle of a road. After telling the police that he was searching for the Lord and could not leave the area, he became physically combative with the officers. The police were forced to use mace in their attempt to subdue Henry, who claimed that he had ingested acid. To the extent that Henry argues that the District Court erred in refusing to depart downward based on the nature of the predicate conviction, we do not review a district court’s discretionary decision not to depart from the Guidelines. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 1 Since we find that the career offender category applies to Henry and sets his Total Offense Level, the two-level enchantment for possession of a firearm challenged by Henry on appeal does not affect his sentence. As such, the issue is moot. 4 332-33. Henry argues, however, that as a part of our § 3553 review, we should find the career offender classification to be unreasonable. We will not, however, conflate this unreviewable exercise of discretion with our examination of the District Court’s application of the § 3553 factors which we discuss below.