Opinion ID: 571393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Numerous Acts of Deception

Text: 38 The government concedes that the trial court erred in basing a criminal history departure on appellant's involvement in the numerous acts of deception arising out of the mailbag incident. Respondent's Brief at 24. These activities, unlike the art gallery embezzlement, clearly were related to the current offenses. 39 For the first time in this circuit we are faced with the question of the validity of a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines that rests on both permissible and impermissible grounds. Our sister circuits are divided in their approaches to this situation. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits hold [292 U.S.App.D.C. 149] that when a departure is based on improper and proper grounds, the case must be remanded for new sentencing because the reviewing court has no way to determine whether any portion of the sentence was based upon consideration of improper factors. United States v. Nuno-Para, 877 F.2d 1409, 1414 (9th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Zamarripa, 905 F.2d 337, 342 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 884 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1989). The Seventh Circuit, in contrast, ignores the improper ground and determines whether the remaining valid ground(s) can support the departure. United States v. Franklin, 902 F.2d 501, 508 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 274, 112 L.Ed.2d 229 (1990) (we do not think our task is to probe the mind of the sentencing judge and try to determine what portions of the departure he or she assigned to the different grounds for departure). 40 The First Circuit has taken a middle position. In United States v. Diaz-Bastardo, 929 F.2d 798 (1st Cir.1991), the court articulated a three-part test for reviewing a departure based on proper and improper grounds. Such a departure will be affirmed so long as: 41 1) the direction and degree of the departure are reasonable in relation to the remaining (valid) ground[;] 42 2) excision of the improper ground does not obscure or defeat the expressed reasoning of the district court[;] and 43 3) the reviewing court is left, on the record as a whole, with the definite and firm conviction that removal of the inappropriate ground would not be likely to alter the district court's view of the sentence rightfully to be imposed. Id. at 800. 17 44 We find the First Circuit test persuasive because it meets the twin goals of insuring that a sentence is imposed for proper reasons and conserving judicial resources. In applying that test to this case, we find that the departure should be affirmed. First, the district court cited sufficient factors to permit a reasonable departure to criminal history category V before it ever mentioned the numerous acts of deception at sentencing. We therefore find that the direction and degree of the departure is reasonable based solely on the valid grounds. Second, the departure was grounded on the appellant's long history of prior criminal activity. Excision of the last of these grounds--the reference to numerous acts of deception--in no way obscures or defeats the basic reasoning of the district court. Finally, this record leaves us with the firm and definite conviction that elimination of the improper ground would not have changed the district judge's view of the proper sentence to be imposed. Apart from the district court's prior action in sentencing appellant to the same sentence of 30 months, our conviction is based primarily on the fact that the district court mentioned the numerous acts of deception only at the tail end of its list of reasons supporting an upward departure and treated it, in contrast to the other factors supporting departure, in a rather summary fashion. We are thus convinced that the numerous acts of deception did not play a central role in the court's determination as to the proper sentence to be imposed. Cf. id. at 800 (remanding for resentencing because the [sentencing] court's comments ... were focussed equally, if not more intensely, on [the improper ground]). Factoring in, finally, appellant's failure to object below, we find that the district court's improper consideration of appellant's numerous acts of deception was harmless error. 45 Ultimately, then, we find that the district court's upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was supported in law and fact and was not unreasonable. 46 Affirmed.