Opinion ID: 571393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Art Gallery Embezzlement

Text: 19 The district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (1989) in departing from the Guidelines on account of the art gallery embezzlement. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (1989) provides that the sentencing court may depart from the applicable Guidelines range [i]f reliable information indicates that the criminal history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.... U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (1989). [R]eliable information includes, but is not limited to, information concerning prior similar adult criminal conduct not resulting in a criminal conviction. U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.3(e) (1989). 20 We think that the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (1989) demonstrates that the trial court did not err in basing a criminal history departure on the art gallery embezzlement. Appellant's admitted embezzlement of funds from the art gallery fits squarely into U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e) (1989). The embezzlement was prior to the instant offense, occurring over a year before the mailbag incident, and the misconduct [292 U.S.App.D.C. 145] was certainly similar to the instant conduct; both involved fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Keys, 899 F.2d 983, 989 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 160, 112 L.Ed.2d 125 (1990) (prior assaultive behavior similar to current charge of weapons offense). Moreover, the art gallery embezzlement did not result in a criminal conviction. 21 Of course, if the art gallery embezzlement was conduct related to the current offenses, as appellant urges, then it would have been error for the district court to include it as part of appellant's criminal history. The Sentencing Guidelines clearly envision criminal history and current offenses as mutually exclusive. See United States v. Kim, 896 F.2d 678, 683 (2d Cir.1990) ([b]y focusing on 'prior' misconduct [in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e) ], the Commission was obviously contemplating acts not relevant to the offense of conviction, since those acts would enter into the 'relevant conduct' analysis used to determine the base offense level and specific offense characteristics); United States v. Fortenbury, 917 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir.1990) (noting that factors considered in the criminal history categories are distinct from those considered in offense levels); see also, Federal Sentencing Manual, p 7.01[b] n. 35 (1991). We must therefore determine whether the art gallery embezzlement was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction and hence properly considered, if at all, only as part of the current offenses. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) (1989). 11 22 Section 1B1.3(a)(2) governs situations involving 23 a pattern of misconduct that cannot be readily broken into discrete, identifiable units that are meaningful for purposes of sentencing. For example, a pattern of embezzlement may consist of several acts of taking that cannot separately be identified, even though the overall conduct is clear. 24 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.3 (Background) (November, 1989) (emphasis supplied). The art gallery embezzlement and the two counts relating to the mailbag clearly can be separately identified. The art gallery embezzlement occurred over a year before the mailbag fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Kappes, 936 F.2d 227, 230-31 (6th Cir.1991) (similar but unrelated crimes committed six years apart not part of the same course of conduct or common plan); United States v. Silverman, 889 F.2d 1531, 1538-39 (6th Cir.1989) (remanding for consideration of whether drug sale in October, 1987 was part of common plan with drug sale in February, 1988). Moreover, the two incidents involved different individuals. According to the PSI, appellant relied on information from an individual named David in receiving the mailbag and conducting the Julian Walther fraud. Appellant did not meet David, however, until after he had ceased to work for the art gallery. See, e.g., United States v. Lawrence,, [292 U.S.App.D.C. 146] 15 F.2d 402, 407 (8th Cir.1990) (finding defendant's cocaine and marijuana sales were part of same course of conduct where defendant had at least one common customer for both types of drugs); United States v. Santiago, 906 F.2d 867, 872-73 (2d Cir.1990) (same course of conduct found where defendant sold drugs to same purchaser). Finally, though both the mailbag crimes and the embezzlement scheme involved fraud, the nature of the crimes clearly differed. See, e.g., United States v. Perdomo, 927 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir.1991) (finding that same course of conduct refers to disparate acts of misconduct involving a specified type of criminal activity). They were thus similar within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e) (1989), but not related in the sense of being part of the same course of conduct or common plan. 12 We find no error, then, in the district court's conclusion that the art gallery embezzlement was part of the defendant's criminal history and not part of the current offenses. 25