Opinion ID: 39245
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard for Upward Departure.--If reliable

Text: information indicates that the defendant’s criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, an upward departure may be warranted. 18 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(4) provides: (4) Determination of Extent of Upward Departure.-- (A) In General.--Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall determine the extent of a departure under this subsection by using, as a reference, the criminal history category applicable to defendants whose criminal history or likelihood to recidivate most closely resembles that of the defendant’s. -37- applicable to defendants whose likelihood to recidivate most closely resembles that of the defendant’s.” The court concluded that, for the reasons already discussed, Simkanin’s likelihood to recidivate most closely resembles that of defendants whose criminal history category is VI. This produced a total offense level of Twenty-Two and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in a sentencing range of 84-105 months. The district court then sentenced at the bottom of that range and imposed an eighty-four month sentence. Simkanin argues that the district court erred in imposing an upward departure on the grounds articulated at the sentencing hearing because: (1) it did not include a written statement of reasons in the judgment as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2);19 (2) the district court impermissibly based its departure on grounds involving Simkanin’s associations and beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment; and (3) the district court’s belief that Simkanin posed a danger of recidivism was not supported by evidence. 19 Section 3553(c) provides: (c) Statement of reasons for imposing a sentence.--The court, at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence--