Opinion ID: 180848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Upward Departure Arguments

Text: Larkin's final argument also implicates Paragraph 27 and alleges that the government made an impermissible argument on applicable upward departures in its Sentencing Memoranda. [11] Although the parties each submitted two briefs to the District Court, the record before us contains only the government's submissions, filed with the District Court on March 26, 2009 and April 17, 2009. Larkin characterizes specific statements within these two briefs as advocating for upward departures from the stipulated guideline range. During its discussion on Larkin's offense level, the government's brief informed the District Court that other pertinent details are not included in this assessment which are worth noting when considering the seriousness of the offense and the need to provide just punishment for the offense. Supp.App. at 14. The government then offered that a factor not considered by the guidelines but reflective of the seriousness of the offense is its duration which spanned intermittently approximately one year. Id. at 15. Other examples in the brief include the fact that Larkin sent the pictures for pecuniary gain and that the victims of her crime suffered. Taken together, Larkin argues that the implicit message to the District Court was that the applicable guideline range was inadequate. All of these arguments were made with respect to the non-guideline sentencing considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (directing that the sentencing of federal criminal defendants must include detailed consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553). While the plea agreement sets forth a contemplated guideline range, the government never agreed to recommend a specific sentence within that range. Thus, its inclusion of other factors not considered by the guidelines is consistent with its burdens under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and can fairly be construed as providing a factual basis for a sentence at the higher end of the range. To the extent that these factors are also the basis for upwardly departures, because the government was responding to a request from the District Court consistent with Paragraph 27, it did not step outside the bounds of the plea agreement. [12] Inasmuch as the government's declarations do not inherently violate its obligations under the plea agreement, the fact that they were made in response to the District Court's request provides additional propriety for their inclusion in the written submissions. Moreover, the government consistently argued for a sentence within the applicable guideline range. For all of these reasons, we find no breach of the plea agreement.