Opinion ID: 603593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Remote Juvenile Convictions

Text: 9 Williams contends that the district court should not have considered juvenile convictions for which sentences were imposed or completed more than five years before he committed the credit card fraud. The remote juvenile offenses were not used to calculate his criminal history category. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d)(2), (e)(3)-(4). The question is whether they nevertheless may provide a reason for an upward departure under § 4A1.3. 10 At the time of Williams's sentencing, the guidelines commentary to § 4A1.2 permitted a court to consider remote convictions for misconduct similar to the offense for which the sentence was being imposed. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n. 8) (Nov. 1990). 4 Williams argues that his remote juvenile convictions--four involving burglary or theft and one for loitering--were not similar to his credit card offense and therefore should have played no role in the departure decision. 11 This circuit has published no opinion on the point that Williams raises. Other circuits are split on the issue. Compare, e.g., United States v. Samuels, 938 F.2d 210 (D.C.Cir.1991) (holding that remote juvenile convictions for dissimilar offenses were not grounds for a departure), with United States v. Gammon, 961 F.2d 103, 108 (7th Cir.1992) (allowing uncounted juvenile adjudications for dissimilar offenses to be considered in determining a departure). 12 The commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 has been amended recently to address this issue. Application Note 8 now reads, in pertinent part: If the court finds that a sentence imposed outside this time period is evidence of similar, or serious dissimilar, criminal conduct, the court may consider this information in determining whether an upward departure is warranted under § 4A1.3 (Adequacy of Criminal History Category). U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n. 8) (Nov. 1992). The Sentencing Commission, noting the split among the circuits, stated that the amendment clarifies that dissimilar, serious prior offenses outside the applicable time period may be considered in determining whether an upward departure is warranted under § 4A1.3. U.S.S.G. App. C (amend. 472) (effective Nov. 1, 1992). 13 Although the commentary was amended after Williams was sentenced, we consider such clarifying amendments to the guidelines' commentary in interpreting the guidelines, even with regard to offenders convicted of offenses occurring before the effective date of the amendments. United States v. Scroggins, 880 F.2d 1204, 1215 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1083, 110 S.Ct. 1816, 108 L.Ed.2d 946 (1990). Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly considered Williams's remote juvenile sentences in deciding whether to depart upward from the guidelines range. Four of the five sentences resulted from convictions for burglary, grand theft and grand larceny. The fifth, for loitering and prowling, arose from the same conduct that produced the theft and larceny convictions. Ignoring this serious criminal conduct would serve merely to obscure his serious history of criminality and the likelihood that he would commit crimes in the future. Gammon, 961 F.2d at 108.