United States v. Peterson, Jeffrey A.
Docket: 01-1003
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; July 5, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Jeffery A. Peterson pleaded guilty to bank fraud, violating 18 U.S.C. sec. 1344. His pre-sentence report (PSR) established a base offense level of 11 and a total of 19 criminal history points, placing him in category VI of the Sentencing Guidelines, which suggested a sentence range of 27 to 33 months. However, the district court imposed a two-level upward departure under U.S.S.G. section 4A1.3, sentencing him to 41 months in prison. Peterson appealed, arguing the district court improperly applied section 4A1.3. The court affirmed the sentence, explaining that section 4A1.3 allows for upward departures if a defendant's criminal history does not adequately reflect the seriousness of past conduct or the likelihood of reoffending. The appeals court employs a three-part test to review such departures: it assesses whether the district court provided adequate grounds, verifies the facts cited, and evaluates whether the degree of departure aligns with the sentencing guidelines structure. Peterson contended that the district court's reliance on his criminal history points was insufficient for an upward departure. The court disagreed, referencing precedent that indicates repeated convictions for similar offenses warrant harsher penalties to deter future crimes. The district court highlighted Peterson's extensive history of check deception, forgery, theft, and identity theft, concluding that his behavior suggested a high likelihood of recidivism. The court affirmed the district court's decision to impose an upward departure in Peterson's sentencing due to his significant criminal history, which included at least 18 points and pending charges. The district court found that Peterson's criminal history did not adequately reflect the severity of his past conduct or the likelihood of reoffending, warranting an upward departure under section 4A1.3. The decision was supported by precedents indicating that an extensive accumulation of criminal history points and a pattern of repeating specific crimes justify such departures. Peterson conceded that the facts supporting the upward departure were proven by a preponderance of the evidence. He raised concerns regarding the reasonableness of the degree of departure, arguing that the court did not adequately link his excess points to the decision. The court rejected this argument, stating that the degree of departure is a matter of reasonableness and that the district court has considerable discretion in determining the appropriate criminal history category. The district court structured the departure by increasing the offense level from 11 to 13, adding one level for every three points above the 13 required for category VI. This method was deemed reasonable and sufficiently aligned with the Sentencing Guidelines. Consequently, the court upheld the district court's upward departure and affirmed Peterson's sentence.