Opinion ID: 3026050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Extent and Reasons for Departure

Text: The district court stated that it departed upward because Starnes’s past and present conduct warranted a departure. The court referred to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, which permits an upward departure if a defendant’s criminal history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. The court pointed out that Starnes had been sentenced on several prior occasions for -2- burglary, theft, attempted theft, and forgery. The court further noted that Starnes had been sentenced in 1996 for a crime identical to the crime with which he was charged in this case. We review the district court’s decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard. We find no abuse here. The guidelines specifically authorize a departure if the court finds that “[t]here exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b); see also United States v. Sharna, 85 F.3d 363, 364 (8th Cir. 1996). In conducting our review, we defer to the district court in the critical issue of whether a given factor is present to a degree not adequately considered by the United States Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Coon, 187 F.3d 888, 899-900 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1417 (2000). We agree with the district court that the factors it cited were appropriate in considering the propriety of an upward departure. After carefully reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest. CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -3-