Opinion ID: 202716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Sentencing Factors

Text: 32 Finally, Ossai contends that the district court did not properly assess the remaining sentencing factors prescribed in U.S.S.G. § 3553(a) before imposing a sentence which exceeded the maximum Guidelines sentence by 13 months. 33 The district court aptly noted the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the robbery, including Ossai's use of a dangerous weapon and the physical restraint he employed against a traumatized victim, and that Ossai had a lengthy history of arrests, anti-social and violent behavior, as well as drug abuse, and resistance to earlier psychological treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant); id. § 3553(a)(2) (the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner). 6 Although Ossai further faults the district court for overemphasizing his two prior adult criminal convictions for relatively minor offenses, the district court explicitly stated that it was relying on Ossai's entire history of prior arrests, substance abuse, and anti-social behavior. 34 Ossai additionally asserts that the district court overemphasized the menace implicit in his statement to Chick: I do not want to hurt you. The court aptly noted, however, that the quoted remark is much more threatening than, for example, I will not hurt you, such that a victim in Chick's vulnerable position — with a gun placed against his head and a captor's hand on his shoulder — in all likelihood reasonably would infer that Ossai, in effect, was stating: I do not want to hurt you, but I will.  Having observed Chick's demeanor at trial, the district court credited Chick's testimony that he had suffered serious mental trauma as a result of the robbery. 35 Finally, were there any serious question as to whether the district court's explanation for imposing a sentence above the maximum Guidelines sentence was a reasoned one, the government's evidence of Ossai's behavior while incarcerated awaiting trial for the robbery removes any uncertainty. At sentencing, a corrections officer testified that he had worked at the prison for seven years processing several hundred prisoners a day, and that Ossai was by far the worst inmate he had ever seen. For example, Ossai repeatedly flooded his cell and the entire cell block with thousands of gallons of urine-contaminated water, threw food, feces and urine out of his cell, and set off the overhead sprinkler systems, causing severe damage. Eventually, after Ossai continued to escape from various physical restraints, the prison had to assign a full-time guard to watch him, at a cost exceeding $17,000. 36 Ossai nevertheless contends, on appeal, that such evidence of extremely violent anti-social behavior merely demonstrates his need for further psychological treatment. Given the psychological testing which showed that Ossai was resistant to psychological treatment, however, the district court reasonably concluded that more prolonged incarceration ( viz., a mere 15% increase above the advisory GSR maximum) is required, both to promote respect for the law, and protect the public from so prodigiously dangerous an individual. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2); see United States v. Hardy, 99 F.3d 1242, 1253 (1st Cir.1996) (affirming a 300% upward departure to reflect defendant's history of violent anti-social behavior). 37 For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the district court decision to increase the maximum Guidelines sentence was hardly unreasonable. 38 Affirmed.