Opinion ID: 7049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of departure

Text: Singleton first argues that the district court erred in finding that his guideline range did not take into account Mullers' murder. Singleton contends that the upward adjustments to his original offense level were based on the dangerousness of his 5 conduct, making a further departure inappropriate. This contention is spurious. The adjustments for discharging a firearm and abducting the victim in no way contemplate an intentional killing. Additionally, this Court has previously held that the enhancement for risk of serious bodily injury does not preclude a sentencing court from departing upward for the death of the victim. United States v. Billingsley, 978 F.2d 861, 865-66 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1661 (1993). Singleton also claims that he did not deserve the upward departure for especially heinous, cruel or degrading conduct. Singleton contends that the fact that Mullers prayed during his ordeal is of no moment and that [a]lthough Mr. Aleman may have been deserving, Mr. Singleton did nothing to warrant this departure, apparently referring to the fact that Singleton himself did not urinate on Mullers but merely stood by as Aleman did. However, the district court did not err by including these occurrences in its decision that the circumstances of the crime were especially cruel or degrading. See United States v. Lara, 975 F.2d 1120, 1126-27 (5th Cir. 1992) (although defendant's partner was the one who actually fired the weapon, no error for court to consider this conduct grounds to depart upward for discharge of a firearm). Given the circumstances of this crime, the court's decision to depart upward for the heinous circumstances of the crime was not error.