IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30302
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERRANCE E. WILLIAMS, also known as Gangsta,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CR-57-1-B)
--------------------
January 14, 2003
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Terrance E. Williams appeals the sentence
imposed at his resentencing following his plea of guilty to
engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise involving controlled-
substances offenses and solicitation of murder. At resentencing,
the district court imposed a life sentence after departing upward
on the express ground that Williams’s criminal history category did
not adequately reflect the seriousness of his criminal history or
the likelihood that he would commit other crimes. See U.S.S.G. §
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
4A1.3, p.s. Williams contends that the district court erred by not
considering intermediate offense levels under the sentencing
guidelines when it departed from an offense level of 35 to one of
43.
We review an upward departure for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265, 270 (5th Cir. 2002). As is well-
established, we do not “require the district court to go through a
ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each
criminal history category [or offense level] it rejects en route to
the category [or offense level] that it selects.” United States v.
Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). As we are
able to discern a basis for the district court’s rejection of
intermediate offense levels to reach the level it used in imposing
Williams’s sentence, we conclude that the court’s implicit
methodology was sufficient. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2
United States v. Williams
Combined Opinion