U.S. v. Anderson, 89-1203

Decision Date29 September 1989
Docket NumberNo. 89-1203,89-1203
Citation886 F.2d 215
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Lee ANDERSON, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Howard A. Shalowitz, Clayton, Mo., for appellant.

Richard Poehling, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Lee Anderson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g) (Supp. V 1987). At sentencing, the district court observed that previous consolidated sentences permitted Anderson to have fewer criminal history points than he might have had if his past offenses had been tried separately. Believing guidelines criminal history category IV underrepresented the seriousness of Anderson's criminal history, the district court departed upward to criminal history category VI. The court then sentenced Anderson to thirty-six months in prison and two years of supervised release. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Anderson argues the district court improperly departed from the criminal history category computed under the guidelines. An upward departure from the guidelines is warranted when "reliable information indicates that the criminal history category [determined under the guidelines] does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 4A1.3, at 4.8 (Oct. 1987); see also United States v. De Luna-Trujillo, 868 F.2d 122, 124 (5th Cir.1989). In considering an upward departure based on a defendant's past criminal conduct, the sentencing court must compare the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history with the criminal histories of offenders in each higher category and then select the category that most closely resembles the defendant's history. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 4A1.3, at 4.9 (Oct. 1987); see also United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 466, 470-71 (7th Cir.1989).

In this instance, the district court did not follow the procedure required for departure. Although the district court's findings support its decision that the applicable guideline underrepresents the seriousness of Anderson's criminal history, the court failed to compare Anderson's history to that of "most defendants with a [c]ategory [VI] criminal history." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 4A1.3, at 4.9 (Oct. 1987); see also United States v. Lopez, 871 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir.1989).

Anderson also contends the district court committed error by increasing the firearms offense level to reflect that the gun he possessed was stolen. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(1) (Oct. 1987). Anderson argues an increase was not proper because no evidence was introduced to show that he stole the gun or knew it was stolen. This argument is without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • U.S. v. Rusher
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 3, 1992
    ...States v. Jones, 905 F.2d 867, 870 (5th Cir.1990); 11 United States v. Coe, 891 F.2d 405, 412-13 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Anderson, 886 F.2d 215, 216 (8th Cir.1989); United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 466, 470-71 (7th Cir.1989) (skipping over category II without stating reasons). But ......
  • U.S. v. Flores, CR01-3052-MWB.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 11, 2002
    ...sentence above the Category VI range. See United States v. Lara-Banda, 972 F.2d 958, 959-60 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Anderson, 886 F.2d 215, 216 (8th Cir.1989). Day, 998 F.2d at As scored in the PSIR, Flores's criminal history is a category IV. However, the undersigned has never see......
  • U.S. v. Mobley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 14, 1992
    ...v. Taylor, 937 F.2d 676 (D.C.Cir.1991); United States v. Peoples, 904 F.2d 23 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Anderson, 886 F.2d 215 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam). We agree. Mobley invokes three well established principles of statutory construction that he thinks compel us to in......
  • U.S. v. Day
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 21, 1991
    ...standards, we must remand for resentencing. United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650, 652 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Anderson, 886 F.2d 215, 216-17 (8th Cir.1989). V. Day's conviction is affirmed. We express no opinion whether his 1979, 1980, and 1982 convictions from the state of Cal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT