Opinion ID: 608132
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Degree of departure

Text: 46 The government noted in its sentencing memorandum that a seven-point upward departure could be supported but did not press this position at the hearing. The district court adopted the presentence report's recommendation and departed upward only three levels from McAninch's offense level. 47 Ordinarily, we would have to remand where one of the court's grounds for departure was invalid because we would not be able to review the reasonableness of the extent of the departure. The sentencing court is obliged to set forth a reasoned explanation of the extent of the departure, with appropriate analogies to the guidelines. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d at 751. For us to speculate as to which combination of factors led the court to impose a particular increase does not assure that sentencing was, in fact, carried out in a proper fashion. United States v. Cruz-Ventura, 979 F.2d 146, 151 (9th Cir.1992). 48 Nonetheless, under the harmless error rule established in Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992), we conclude that remand is unnecessary in this case. A remand is not required if the reviewing court concludes, on the record as a whole ... that the error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed. Williams, at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1121. Even if one of the district court's reasons for departure was invalid, the sentence can be reasonable provided that the remaining reasons are sufficient to justify the magnitude of the departure. Id. 49 By virtue of application note 2 to section 3A1.2, which provided for at least a three-point increase because the President was a victim, McAninch's offense level could be no less than 16. The district court effectively imposed no increase for either of the other grounds for departure. In concluding that the error was harmless, we note that the government merely urges affirmance and does not take the position on appeal that the court should have departed more. We therefore have no occasion to remand for reconsideration on that basis. See United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705, 711 (9th Cir.) (where government fails to contest sentence on appeal, it waives any challenge to district court's miscalculation in defendant's favor), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 962, 110 S.Ct. 2574, 109 L.Ed.2d 756 (1990). 50 McAninch's sentence is AFFIRMED.