Court Opinion

ID: 9481503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:21:08.118498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:21.764544
License: Public Domain

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree that the Sentencing Commission did not “adequately” consider the degree of risk to public safety in § 2K1.3. If the Commission had, it would likely have provided for a specific enhancement as it did for other aggravating circumstances, such as the fact that Huddleston, as a convicted felon, was prohibited from receiving explosives.
Nothing in the district court’s remarks, however, explains why the court thought it appropriate to impose a sentence nearly *1033double the maximum allowable under the guidelines. The record discloses no indication that the risk of an explosion was substantial or that, even had there been an explosion, it necessarily or even probably would have harmed bystanders or caused major property damage. It seems to me to be inconsistent to conclude that the guidelines do not “adequately” consider the degree of harm, and then simply accept without reason that the degree of the district court’s departure does.
Other circuits have required the district court to make some statement of its reasons.1 As the majority opinion points out, however, the law of this circuit does not require the district court to do so;2 and, therefore, bound by the law of the circuit, I concur.

. See United States v. Sasnett, 925 F.2d 392, 398 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Davis, 922 F.2d 616, 617 (10th Cir.1990).

. United States v. Roberson, 872 F.2d 597, 607 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 175, 107 L.Ed.2d 131 (1989); United States v. Geiger, 891 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 165, 169 (5th Cir.1990).