Opinion ID: 76572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable law: standard of review and relevant conduct

Text: 22 This case involves challenges to the length of Amedeo's sentence imposed by the district court, pursuant both to enhancements and upward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. 5 When appeal is taken from an enhancement, we review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531, 1536 (11th Cir.1997). Specifically, [i]n the context of applying enhancements to specific offense characteristics, this Court has held that our review is de novo. United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir.1997). The district court's factual findings related to the imposition of sentencing enhancements, however, are reviewed only for clear error. Id. 23 Our review of the district court's departures from the Guidelines is subject to a slightly different standard. In 2003, Congress enacted the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act). Pub.L. No. 108-21, § 1, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). The PROTECT Act altered the standard of review applied to most challenges to sentencing departures. 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Under the Act, we review de novo the district court's application of the Guidelines to facts in deciding whether a departure was based on a factor that: (1) advanced the objectives of federal sentencing policy; (2) was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) (detailing factors to be considered at sentencing); and (3) was justified by the facts of the case. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(e); United States v. Pressley, 345 F.3d 1205, 1209 n. 1 (11th Cir.2003). Otherwise, we give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(e). We also give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. 24 We next address the district court's upward departures from the Guidelines range. Before departing from the Guidelines, a district court must determine that an aggravating factor exists that places the case outside of the Guidelines' heartland. United States v. Melvin, 187 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 98, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)). Whether a case is sufficiently unusual to fall outside of the heartland is determined largely by comparison with other Guidelines cases. Id. Because the district courts see so many Guidelines cases, district courts have an institutional advantage over appellate courts in determining whether a case is outside the heartland, and thus their decisions are entitled to substantial deference. Id. 25 A court may depart on the basis of a factor enumerated in the Guidelines unless the Guidelines already take the factor into account. Koon, 518 U.S. at 96, 116 S.Ct. 2035. If a factor is already taken into account by the applicable guideline, the court may depart only if the factor is present to an exceptional degree or in some other way makes the case distinguishable from an ordinary case where the factor is present. Id. 26 In this case, adjudicating the upward departures depends heavily on determining which of Amedeo's conduct properly should be considered for sentencing purposes. The district court was faced with the difficult task of delineating the relevant conduct pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. That section provides, in relevant part, that adjustments shall be determined on the basis of: 27 (1)(A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; 28