Opinion ID: 70234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.1 Upward Departure

Text: 42 In his final assignment of error, Williams contends that the district court erred in upwardly departing from the guidelines pursuant to section 5K2.1. That section provides: If death resulted, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range. U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.1. We review the district court's decision to depart from the guidelines in three parts. See United States v. Huang, 977 F.2d 540, 544 (11th Cir.1992). 43 First, we review de novo the district court's ruling that the guidelines did not adequately consider a particular factor in establishing the base offense level. Huang, 977 F.2d at 544. Williams does not contest the upward departure under this prong of the analysis. Indeed, while the guideline establishing the base offense level for carjacking does consider life-threatening bodily injury, it fails to take into account death. 7 Thus, the district court properly looked to section 5K2.1. 44 Second, we must review for clear error the factual findings supporting the departure. Huang, 977 F.2d at 544. Williams contends that he could not foresee that Donaldson would accidentally shoot Whitehead; therefore, the district court erred in finding that Whitehead's death resulted from the carjacking. We, however, agree with the Second and the Seventh Circuits that, when determining whether a death resulted from the offense for purposes of section 5K2.1, a factual finding that death was intentionally or knowingly risked is sufficient. United States v. White, 979 F.2d 539, 545 (7th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Rivalta, 892 F.2d 223, 232 (2d Cir.1989). In approaching the truck with a weapon, Williams knowingly risked the lives of its occupants; he  'put into motion' a chain of events that contained an 'inevitable tragic result.'  White, 979 F.2d at 545. Thus, we conclude that the district court's finding that a death resulted from the carjacking was not clearly erroneous. 45 Finally, we review the reasonableness of the district court's departure given the legal and factual posture of the case. Huang, 977 F.2d at 544. Williams argues that an upward departure was unreasonable given the legal posture of his case. Specifically, he contends that his acquittal at the penalty phase of the trial should have prevented the district court from departing on the basis that a death resulted. Williams, however, fails to recognize that [a]cquitted conduct may be considered by a sentencing court because a verdict of acquittal demonstrates a lack of proof sufficient to meet a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard--a standard of proof higher than that required for consideration of relevant conduct at sentencing. United States v. Averi, 922 F.2d 765, 766 (11th Cir.1991). Thus, his contention fails, and we conclude that the district court's departure was reasonable in all respects.