Opinion ID: 603593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Williams's Prior Arrests

Text: 14 At the sentencing hearing, the district judge told Williams that the credit card offense ordinarily would not carry a long sentence. But, the judge added, Williams's record of 28 arrests ... and 16 convictions in the last seven years between ages 13 and 20 throw an entirely different light on the thing. (R.2 at 6.) The arrests that did not lead to convictions included at least three occasions on which Williams was charged with burglary and theft. Later, in stating the reasons for departing from the guidelines range, the judge spoke in more general terms about Williams's extensive criminal history and his risk of recidivism. Williams says the judge's broad remarks leave[ ] open the possibility that Williams' prior arrest record was improperly considered in determining the adequacy of criminal history. (Appellant's Br. at 9.) 15 Williams correctly points out that a district court may not consider a prior arrest record itself when departing from the guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s. The implication from this rule is that an arrest record standing alone is not sufficiently reliable to support a departure. See United States v. Huang, 977 F.2d 540, 543 (11th Cir.1992) (stating that a prior arrest record itself cannot be considered under section 4A1.3). 16 Here, though, the district court did not rely on Williams's arrest record itself. The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects the judge's thorough knowledge of Williams's history and the PSI. The PSI lists Williams's arrests and, based on police reports, provides a summary of the facts surrounding most of the incidents. The report also states the disposition of each charge. Thus, the information relayed to the court was far more in depth than mere arrest records. United States v. Torres, 977 F.2d 321, 330 (7th Cir.1992). Moreover, Williams has in no way questioned the reliability of the facts related by the PSI. To the contrary, under direct questioning by the district judge, Williams said he was familiar with the PSI's account of his offenses and he knew of no misleading or inaccurate statements in the report. His counsel added that Williams could not remember the details of one or two incidents, but we had no basis to object or dispute the facts as alleged. (R. 2 at 3-4.) 17 Section 4A1.3 grants courts broad authority to consider reliable information when contemplating a departure. The PSI in this case does not contain a mere record of arrests, but provides additional facts drawn from police reports relative to the conduct that prompted the arrests. Nothing before us indicates that the district court relied on an arrest record alone. Williams has acknowledged that the information in the PSI is reliable, and he does not argue that the court otherwise erred by reviewing the particulars of his many encounters with police. When a defendant has an opportunity to and fails to object to the facts, information, and records used to support a departure, there is little reason to question a district court's decision. Torres, 977 F.2d at 330. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err when it considered information about criminal conduct leading to Williams's prior arrests.