United States v. Scott ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                     No. 96-4858
    LARRY DONNELL SCOTT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby.
    Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
    (CR-95-62)
    Submitted: October 31, 1997
    Decided: December 29, 1997
    Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    William L. Gardo, II, Hendersonville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, William Boyum, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Donnell Scott appeals the sentence of 262 months imprison-
    ment he received after he pled guilty to three counts of kidnaping, 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1201
    (a)(1) (West 1984 & Supp. 1997), one count of trans-
    porting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, 
    18 U.S.C. § 2312
    (1994), and one count of possessing a stolen vehicle which had
    crossed a state boundary after being stolen, 
    18 U.S.C. § 2313
     (1994).
    Scott contends that the district court erred in departing upward pursu-
    ant to U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 4A1.3, p.s. (1995), and
    also failed to comply with the requirements set out in United States
    v. Rusher, 
    966 F.2d 868
    , 884 (4th Cir. 1992), and further explained
    in United States v. Harrison, 
    58 F.3d 115
    , 117-18 (4th Cir. 1995). We
    find that the departure was not an abuse of discretion. However,
    because we agree that the departure did not comply with our prece-
    dents, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
    Scott's eighteen criminal history points placed him in criminal his-
    tory category VI. At his first sentencing hearing, the district court
    determined that Scott was not a career offender,* but continued the
    sentencing to allow the government to argue for a departure above
    category VI. At the second sentencing hearing, the government
    argued that Scott was a de facto career offender. See United States v.
    Cash, 
    983 F.2d 558
    , 562 (4th Cir. 1992) (departure directly to career
    offender guideline range permissible if district court finds that defen-
    dant has committed two crimes that qualify as predicate crimes for
    career offender status but which for some reason cannot be counted).
    _________________________________________________________________
    *A defendant is a career offender if he is at least 18 years old at the
    time of the current offense, the current offense is a crime of violence or
    a controlled substance offense, and he has two prior felony convictions
    for either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. See
    USSG § 4B1.1.
    2
    Alternatively, the government argued that the court should depart
    above category VI because Scott had received only three criminal his-
    tory points for five felonies which were consolidated for sentencing,
    no points for two juvenile convictions for car theft, and no points for
    a possible 1987 conviction for assault by pointing a gun which the
    probation officer was unable to verify. Scott argued that all his crimi-
    nal convictions had been properly accounted for in the criminal his-
    tory calculation. The court determined that a departure was warranted
    and departed upward from offense level 26 to offense level 34. The
    departure produced a guideline range of 262-327 months. The court
    imposed a sentence of 262 months.
    We first review the district court's decision to depart for abuse of
    discretion. See Koon v. United States, 
    116 S. Ct. 2035
     (1996). Under
    USSG § 4A1.3, a criminal history category which significantly under-
    represents the defendant's past conduct is an encouraged factor for
    departure. The court cited Scott's high criminal history score, the con-
    solidation of several of his serious crimes for sentencing, and the
    large number of times he had been arrested with charges subsequently
    being dismissed. We find that, in view of the high number of criminal
    history points Scott had accumulated and the consolidated sentence he
    received for a felony drug possession, two kidnappings, two armed
    robberies, and the burglary of a jewelry store, the court's decision to
    depart was not an abuse of discretion. In addition, we have approved
    the court's method of departing above category VI by moving to a
    higher offense level. See United States v. Cash , 
    983 F.2d 558
    , 561 &
    n.6 (4th Cir. 1992).
    However, we find merit in Scott's second contention that the dis-
    trict court failed to consider each successively higher offense level
    and to make specific findings before proceeding to the next one. See
    Cash, 
    983 F.2d at
    561 & n.6; Rusher, 
    966 F.2d at 884
    . Failure to fol-
    low this procedure is reversible error. See Harrison, 
    58 F.3d at
    118-
    19. Consequently, we must vacate the sentence and remand for resen-
    tencing solely to obtain an adequate explanation of the district court's
    reason for departing above category VI and to make appellate review
    of that decision possible.
    We therefore affirm the decision to depart but vacate the sentence
    and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument
    3
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED
    IN PART, AND REMANDED
    4