Opinion ID: 784322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Extent of Departures

Text: 23 The district court did not abuse its discretion with regard to the extent of the upward departures under §§ 5K2.4 and 5K2.8. See Alfaro, 336 F.3d at 880-81. Every departure must be `reasonable' in extent. United States v. Working, 287 F.3d 801, 806 (9th Cir.2002). In reviewing the reasonableness of the extent of a departure from the guidelines range, we require a district court to explain the basis for the departure in sufficiently specific language to allow appellate review. United States v. Working, 224 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir.2000) ( en banc ). [W]here ... a district court sets out findings justifying the magnitude of its decision to depart and extent of departure from the Guidelines, and that explanation cannot be said to be unreasonable, the sentence imposed must be affirmed. Sablan, 114 F.3d at 919. 24 The district court adequately explained its decision to make a three-level upward adjustment under both § 5K2.4 and § 5K2.8, resulting in an actual sentence increase of approximately 180 months (twice the sentence prior to enhancement). The court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that Barragan-Espinoza had unlawfully restrained Crawford while forcing her to participate in drug sales and repeatedly raped her over a period of five days. These findings, which provide more than adequate justification for the extent of the departures, were made with sufficient clarity to allow appellate review. See Working, 224 F.3d at 1102.