Opinion ID: 758271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasons for Degree of Departure

Text: 27 Finally, Mr. Forsythe argues that the district court failed to provide the required explanation for the degree of upward departure. We agree. 28 When a sentencing court departs upward from the Guidelines, it must explain not only the basis for departure but also the reasons why a particular degree of departure is warranted. See United States v. Yates, 22 F.3d 981, 991 (10th Cir.1994) ([A] district court's justification for an upward departure does not by itself supply a rationale for the specific degree of departure selected, and we, as a reviewing court, are not able to supply that rationale.); United States v. Flinn, 987 F.2d 1497, 1502 (10th Cir.1993) (This circuit has consistently ... reiterated that the district court must specifically articulate reasons for the degree of departure so that the appellate court may properly review the reasonableness of the sentence.... [E]xplanation of why a departure is made does not fulfill the separate requirement of stating the reasons for imposing the particular sentence.); United States v. Jackson, 921 F.2d 985, 990 (10th Cir.1990) ([T]he district court's enunciation of an adequate explanation for a departure sentence is a threshold requirement, mandated by statute.); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (requiring the district court to state at the time of sentencing the specific reason for the imposition of a sentence different from that described [in the Guidelines].). 29 In determining the degree of departure, the district court should consider the district court's proffered justifications as well as such factors as: the seriousness of the offense, the need for just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, correctional treatment, the sentencing pattern of the Guidelines, the policy statements contained in the Guidelines, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. United States v. White, 893 F.2d 276, 278 (10th Cir.1990) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3742(e)(3) and 3553(a)). Although the court is not required to explain the degree of departure with mathematical precision, it still should justify the departure by analogy to or extrapolation from the Guidelines. United States v. Arutunoff, 1 F.3d 1112, 1120 (10th Cir.1993); see also United States v. O'Dell, 965 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir.1992) (Our opinions have required the district court to explain the specific degree of departure by providing some method of analogy, extrapolation or reference to the sentencing guidelines.); United States v. Roth, 934 F.2d 248, 252 (10th Cir.1991) ([T]he sentencing court should draw analogies to offense characteristic levels, criminal history categories, and other principles in the guidelines to determine the appropriate degree of departure.). 30 Here, the district court's memorandum on departure does not comply with these requirements. Although the court's memorandum states that upward departure is warranted because of Mr. Forsythe's exploitation of his relationship with his sons and stepdaughter, it contains no explanation of why the particular degree of departure selected by the court is justified. There is no reference to offense levels for analogous offenses, criminal history categories, or any other provisions of the Guidelines. In the absence of any explanation of the degree of departure selected, we are unable to review the district court's decision. See United States v. Okane, 52 F.3d 828, 837 (10th Cir.1995) (concluding that the district court's statement that a criminal history category of 3 more appropriately represents [the defendant's] prior criminal conduct failed to provide an adequate explanation of the reasons for the degree of departure); Flinn, 987 F.2d at 1503 (concluding that the district court's explanation of the reasons for the degree of departure selected was inadequate). 3