IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10939
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES HOWARD FRENCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
4:01-CR-12-4-A
March 1, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles French challenges the sentence imposed following his
plea of guilty and conviction for conspiracy to possess and conceal
falsely made and counterfeited obligations of the United States in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 471, and 472. The district court
first concluded that French’s criminal history category was IV and
that the base offense level was 9, exposing him to a sentence of 12
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
to 18 months imprisonment, 2 to 3 years of supervised release, a
special assessment of $100, and a fine of between $1000 and
$10,000. The district court made an upward departure, and
sentenced French to the statutory maximum term of 60 months
imprisonment. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
We may review a sentence only if it was imposed: (1) in
violation of law, (2) as the result of an incorrect application of
the guidelines, (3) as the result of an upward departure, or (4)
unreasonably for an offense not covered by the guidelines.1 French
challenges the district court’s decision to depart upward from the
Guidelines, which we review for an abuse of discretion.2 “We will
affirm a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines if it is based
on ‘acceptable reasons’ and the degree of departure is
‘reasonable.’”3
The district court departed upward by adjusting French’s
criminal history category from IV to VI. The Guidelines permit
such an upward departure “when the criminal history category
significantly under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s
criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit
further crimes.”4 The reasons for this decision were carefully
1
United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230, 248 (5th Cir. 2001).
2
United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir. 1998).
3
United States v. Milton, 147 F.3d 414, 421 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1341 (5th Cir. 1996)).
4
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.
2
detailed by the district court. Specifically, several prior
convictions were not included in the criminal history calculation
because they were consolidated for purposes of the Guidelines with
other convictions or were too old to be considered under the
Guidelines.5 The district court noted French’s long criminal
career, beginning at age 19 and extending to age 41 for the current
conviction, and concluded that French was a likely future offender.
While we have said that the district court, when adjusting the
criminal history of a defendant upward, “should consider each
intermediate criminal history category before arriving at the
sentence,”6 we have recognized that this does not “require the
district court to go through a ritualistic exercise in which it
mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en
route to the category it selects.”7 The district court adequately
stated its reasons for adjusting the criminal history category to
VI. It did not need to “stop” and consider category V, because the
defendant’s prior convictions, if included, resulted in a criminal
history category of VI.
The district court also chose to depart upward after adjusting
the criminal history category to VI, to an offense level of 17,
5
French had 14 prior convictions between 1978 and 1998 including narcotics
offenses, theft, and numerous forgery convictions. At sentencing French was
facing pending state charges for forgery (his specialty, it appears) and
possession of a controlled substance.
6
United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 662 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
7
Id. at 663.
3
based on the same factors and resulting in a guideline range of 51
to 63 months. We find this departure to be reasonable, given
French’s multitudinous encounters with law enforcement over his
expansive criminal career.8
AFFIRMED.
8
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 (“In determining ... whether a departure from the
guidelines is warranted, the court may consider, without limitation, any
information concerning the background, character and conduct of the defendant,
unless otherwise prohibited by law.”).
4