Opinion ID: 761068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Steps Two and Three--The Decision to Depart

Text: 31 We now proceed to the second and third parts of our inquiry: whether the combination of factors identified by the district court warrants an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines, and whether the record sufficiently supports the factual basis underlying the departure. Collins, 122 F.3d at 1308. At this stage of the analysis, our review is very deferential. The Supreme Court has instructed federal appellate courts to take care not to ignore the district court's special competence ... about the 'ordinariness' or 'unusualness' of a particular case, and has stated that district courts have an institutional advantage over appellate courts in making typicality determinations, because district courts see many more such cases than appellate courts do. Koon, 518 U.S. at 98-99. The district court in this case specifically held that Carreon-Ortega's criminal history was atypical and that his criminal history category underrepresents his criminal history. R.Vol. 7 at 24, 25. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Carreon-Ortega was convicted of the uncounted offenses, and that these offenses were not assigned any criminal history points at sentencing. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that this defendant's particular criminal history was not adequately represented by his criminal history score, and that the factual basis underlying the upward departure is sufficiently supported in the record.