Opinion ID: 587751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 9 In his direct appeal, Paslay argues that the lower court's upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was improper for two primary reasons. First, Paslay asserts that the lower court improperly relied on the victimization of his accomplices in making its four-level departure. Second, Paslay claims that he was not accorded proper notice of the lower court's grounds for departing from the guidelines under Burns v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 2186-87, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991). In addition, Paslay argues that the lower court abused its discretion by denying him a two-level reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility.