Opinion ID: 672030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: derivation of the sentence

Text: 2 In late 1992, a federal grand jury indicted defendant-appellant Jesus M. Quinones-Rodriguez (Quinones) on one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2119(1). The next month, the grand jury returned a separate indictment charging appellant with participating in a different carjacking episode. After the district court consolidated the cases, appellant pleaded guilty to both charges. 3 When no guideline exists referable to a particular offense of conviction, a sentencing court must select, and then apply, the most analogous offense guideline. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 2X5.1; see also United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1158-60 (1st Cir.1993) (describing mechanics of choosing analogy). Because no guideline had yet been promulgated for carjacking, the district court borrowed the robbery guideline, U.S.S.G. Sec. 2B3.1, which specified a base offense level (BOL) of 20. 4 The district court then embarked upon a series of interim calculations. It increased the BOL: by seven levels because a perpetrator discharged a firearm in the course of one carjacking, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(A); by two levels because the perpetrators inflicted bodily injury on certain victims, see id. Sec. 2B3.1(b)(3)(A); by four levels because the perpetrators abducted two of the victims, see id. Sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(A); and by one level because the amount of loss, while not over $50,000, nonetheless exceeded $10,000, see id. Sec. 2B3.1(b)(6)(B)-(C). The court added two levels to reflect the existence of separate groups of offenses, 2 see U.S.S.G. Sec. 3D1.4(a), after determining that the carjacking charges were non-groupable, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 3D1.2(d) (excluding robbery from the operation of standard grouping principles). And, finally, the court deducted three levels for acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(b). 5 The adjustments that we have catalogued produced a guideline sentencing range (GSR) of 168-210 months. 3 At the sentencing hearing, the judge recognized that, in the typical case, concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences, are the norm; that, absent a departure, the guidelines would generate a total punishment of no more than 210 months in prison for the whole case, that is, for both carjackings; and that, in a concurrent sentence paradigm, the total punishment could not lawfully exceed the maximum term of imprisonment--15 years (180 months)--that Congress had established for a carjacking conviction, see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2119(1). Nevertheless, the judge eschewed the imposition of concurrent sentences. He reasoned that, given appellant's extreme conduct, the case was not a normal, typical guideline case; that a 180-month maximum sentence would not be adequate to achieve punishment commensurate to the offense conduct; and, therefore, that concurrent sentences were not an acceptable option. 6 The judge then departed upwardly and imposed a 336-month prison term--a term that, in the judge's words, would be the equivalent of consecutive sentences in both consolidated criminal cases on the basis of the lower end of the guideline on each [168 months]. Citing U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.8, the judge grounded the upward departure in [t]he heinous, the brutal, the cruel, degrading treatment that was given to some of the victims. This appeal followed.