United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 23, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30932
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FREDA ANN HOLMES EDMOND,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-50112-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Freda Ann Holmes Edmond appeals the 96-month sentence
imposed by the district court upon her guilty plea to 40 counts
of aiding in the preparation of false tax returns. The district
court departed from the guidelines range because Edmond’s
calculated criminal history category did not accurately reflect
the seriousness of her past criminal history, or the likelihood
that she would commit other offenses. The court further
determined that although the six convictions for which Edmond was
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-30932
-2-
not assessed any criminal history points were old, “all of these
convictions involve theft or fraud which are prior adult
convictions similar to the offense before the court.”
A district court may depart from an otherwise applicable
guideline range “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.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s. This court reviews an upward
departure for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Winters,
174 F.3d 478, 482 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States v.
Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). The
reasonableness of the extent of a departure is to be determined
in light of the reasons for departure. See United States v.
Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 730-31 (5th Cir. 1996).
In United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir.
1993)(en banc), this court rejected the notion that a district
court, when departing on the basis of § 4A1.3, must “go through a
ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each
criminal history category it rejects en route to the category
that it selects.” The district court did not refer expressly to
category VI or to any of the intermediate criminal history
categories it implicitly rejected by its sentence of 96 months of
imprisonment. However, it is apparent from the record that the
court deemed the bypassed categories to be inadequate because
they did not accurately reflect the seriousness of Edmond’s past
No. 02-30932
-3-
history or the likelihood that she would commit other offenses.
Thus, the record presents a basis upon which this court may
reasonably conclude that the district court thoroughly considered
the appropriate guidelines in arriving at its ultimate sentence.
As noted by the district court, Edmond has a long history of
offenses involving fraud and theft. She continued to commit the
same types of offenses, despite arrest and prosecution, including
her arrest for the instant offense. No abuse of discretion has
been shown.
AFFIRMED.