United States v. Richard R. Starnes , 2 F. App'x 639 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-2729
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                         * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Richard R. Starnes,                     *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 13, 2000
    Filed: February 14, 2001
    ___________
    Before LOKEN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY,1 District Judge.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Richard R. Starnes was charged in an eight-count indictment with possessing
    altered money orders, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 500
    . He pleaded guilty to Count 1
    of the indictment in exchange for the government’s dismissal of the remaining seven
    counts. A presentence report was prepared, which yielded a guidelines range of 15 to
    21 months imprisonment. The district court departed upward from the guidelines
    1
    The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District
    of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    range, imposing the statutory maximum of five years. Starnes objected to the lack of
    prior notice of the district court’s intention to depart upward and to the extent of the
    departure. The district court rejected both arguments and Starnes appeals, raising the
    same issues with this court. We affirm.
    I. Notice
    Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 requires a court to provide a defendant
    notice if it intends to depart upward from a defendant’s guidelines sentencing range.
    See Burns v. United States, 
    501 U.S. 129
    , 138-39 (1991). This court has held that
    inclusion in a presentence report of the grounds that may form the basis for an upward
    departure satisfies the rule. See United States v. Hill, 
    951 F.2d 867
     (8th Cir. 1991).
    Here, the presentence report included a section entitled, “FACTORS THAT MAY
    WARRANT DEPARTURE.” The section read as follows:
    The Court may consider U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 to determine if the defendant's
    criminal history category represents the seriousness of his past criminal
    conduct. The defendant has well over 20 criminal history points. The
    defendant has continued the same type of criminal activity as in the past.
    In our view, this was sufficient notice to Starnes concerning the possibility of an
    upward departure.
    II. The Extent and Reasons for Departure
    The district court stated that it departed upward because Starnes’s past and
    present conduct warranted a departure. The court referred to U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, which permits an upward departure if a defendant’s
    criminal history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s
    past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.
    The court pointed out that Starnes had been sentenced on several prior occasions for
    -2-
    burglary, theft, attempted theft, and forgery. The court further noted that Starnes had
    been sentenced in 1996 for a crime identical to the crime with which he was charged
    in this case.
    We review the district court’s decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
    We find no abuse here. The guidelines specifically authorize a departure if the court
    finds that “[t]here exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a
    degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in
    formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that
    described.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (b); see also United States v. Sharna, 
    85 F.3d 363
    , 364
    (8th Cir. 1996).
    In conducting our review, we defer to the district court in the critical issue of
    whether a given factor is present to a degree not adequately considered by the United
    States Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Coon, 
    187 F.3d 888
    , 899-900
    (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 
    120 S. Ct. 1417
     (2000). We agree with the district court
    that the factors it cited were appropriate in considering the propriety of an upward
    departure.
    After carefully reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    A true copy.
    Attest.
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-2729

Citation Numbers: 2 F. App'x 639

Judges: Battey, Heaney, Loken, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/14/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024