Opinion ID: 169772
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: STANDARD FOR UPW ARD DEPARTURES. 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. Still concedes it was proper for the court to consider the length of his criminal history. As to the second factor, Still no longer argues his history of recidivism fails to take his case out of the guidelines “heartland” or is insufficient to provide reliable information supporting a departure. As to the third factor, the type of information which may be considered reliable includes, but is not limited to, information concerning prior sentences of substantially more than one year imposed as a result of independent crimes committed on different occasions. 2 The government suggests we modify this test to reflect the “new vitality” of the § 3553(a) factors post-Booker. (Appellee’s Br. at 12.) W e need not decide if the wording of this test requires post-Booker modification as Still cannot show error under the guidelines or § 3553(a). -8- USSG §4A1.3(a)(2). The record is replete with reliable information which supports the factual basis underlying the departure. Thus, we proceed to the fourth factor, and consider whether the degree of departure was reasonable. As we stated in United States v. Proffit, The district court is required to precisely lay out its reasoning and analysis as to why it is selecting a particular degree of departure. This reasoning and analysis must give us reasonable indicia that the sentence the district court pronounces is proportional to the crime committed. The district court accomplishes this task by using any reasonable methodology hitched to the Sentencing Guidelines to justify the reasonableness of the departure. 304 F.3d 1001, 1012 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). W here the district court determines a criminal history category VI does not reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or his proclivity for recidivism, USSG §4A1.3(4)(B) suggests “the court should structure the departure by moving incrementally down the sentencing table to the next higher offense level in Criminal History Category VI until it finds a guideline range appropriate to the case.” As the government noted in its brief in support of its motion for an upward departure, if Still’s uncounted “convictions were assigned points, [he] would have thirty-four additional criminal history points for a total of fifty-two.” (Vol. I, Doc. 21 at 4.) The government suggested (and the probation department concurred) that the court apply a total offense level of twelve rather than four, resulting in a sentencing range of thirty to thirty-seven months imprisonment. The government further urged the court to sentence Still at the statutory maximum -9- under 18 U.S.C. § 912, arguing “[s]ociety should be protected from the defendant for as long as § 912 allows.” (Id. at 6.) W hile the district court did not expressly state the reason for an upw ard departure from the guideline offense level of four to twelve, it specifically adopted the government’s arguments. 3 (Vol. II at 13.) Still argues this departure would not be sanctioned under pre-Booker precedent because it is unsupported by the record. However, even adopting the methodology Still suggests, assigning one offense level for every four uncounted criminal history points above fifteen or sixteen, the total increase would be eight offense levels, 4 bringing Still to the offense level tw elve he now rejects. (Appellant’s Br. at 21, n.1.) Thus, there is no question that the district’s court’s decision utilized “a[ ] reasonable methodology hitched to the Sentencing Guidelines to justify the reasonableness of the departure.” Profitt, 304 F.3d at 1012; see also United States v. Hurlich, 348 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 2003) (“The district court may use any reasonable methodology hitched to the Sentencing Guidelines to justify the reasonableness of a departure, which includes 3 The Probation Department filed an addendum to the PSR in support of the government’s assessment in its M otion for Upward Departure. It stated: “given the defendant’s criminal history and the nature of his offenses, [ ] a three year term of imprisonment is reasonable.” (R . Vol. III at A -1.) 4 Still had seven uncounted convictions valued at three points each, five uncounted convictions valued at two points each and three uncounted convictions valued at one point each, for a total of thirty-four uncounted criminal history points. See USSG § 4A1.1(a),(b)& (c). (R. Vol. III at 6-10.) -10- using extrapolation from or analogy to the Guidelines.” (quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, we conclude that the district court correctly consulted the guidelines and conducted the proper departure analysis.