Opinion ID: 45022
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal History Points for Prior Sentence

Text: DeAngelis argues that the criminal history assigned based on his 2001 conviction for attempted tax evasion was error. He contends that the 2001 conviction involved a “related case,” not a “prior sentence,” under section 4A1.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. The pertinent inquiry is whether the 2001 conviction involved “conduct that is part of the instant offense,” which means conduct that is relevant conduct to the instant offense under section 1B1.3 of the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. n.1. Although DeAngelis repeatedly confuses this inquiry with the “related case” inquiry of section 4A1.2(a)(2), we construe his argument to be about the “relevant conduct to the instant offense.” DeAngelis argues that, because the indictment alleged his nonfiling of tax returns beginning in 1993, his earlier conviction for attempted tax evasion in 1994 involved conduct that is part of the instant offense. We disagree. At the sentencing hearing, the government conceded that the indictment and the PSI included the tax loss from 1993 to 1995, but argued that there was no overlapping conduct between the instant offense and DeAngelis’s earlier conviction. It was not clear error for the district court to find that the instant offenses and the 1994 tax evasion were “separate and distinct crimes.” 14 3. Criminal History Points for Commission While Incarcerated DeAngelis’s next argument is related to his previous argument. DeAngelis argues that if the 2001 conviction is not included in the criminal history under section 4A1.2(a)(1), it may not be used for the enhancement for commission of the instant offense while under a sentence under section 4A1.1(d). This argument fails, because we conclude that the 2001 conviction was properly included in the criminal history. 4. Criminal History Category Departure DeAngelis argues that the departure from category III to category IV was an abuse of discretion based on “the subjective views of the district court.” A court may depart upward “[i]f reliable information indicates that the defendant’s criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1). The district court explained its reasons for granting the departure, which included the unprosecuted offenses that DeAngelis had committed and his lack of moral sensitivity in the commission of the instant offenses. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 15