United States v. Dennis Mobley
663 F. App'x 488
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mobley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; district court sentenced him to 60 months' imprisonment.
- Facts: while a felon awaiting sentencing on a state aiding-an-offender charge (connected to attempted murder and drugs), officers found a loaded .40 pistol in Mobley’s vehicle after a traffic stop and foot pursuit.
- PSR: offense level 12, Criminal History Category VI, advisory Guidelines range 30–37 months.
- Government moved for an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), arguing Category VI under-represented Mobley’s violent/drug-related criminality and requested a 5-level increase (range 51–63 months) or a 63-month variance.
- District court discussed Mobley’s repeated gun- and drug-related offenses, found the Guidelines “a real understatement,” did not orally describe the incremental § 4A1.3(a) process but imposed 60 months and later noted in its written reasons that it had departed under § 4A1.3(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court adequately explained its reasons for an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) | Mobley: court failed to explain the reasons for the upward departure | Government/District Court: explanation of criminal history and specific offenses justified departure | Affirmed — no plain error; explanation was adequate despite not reciting incremental category analysis |
| Whether district court justified the extent (5-level) of the upward departure | Mobley: court gave insufficient justification for a 5-level increase | Government/District Court: court’s findings about repeated violent/drug offenses and committing the federal offense while awaiting sentencing justified the departure | Affirmed — justification sufficient and sentence substantively reasonable |
| Whether district court improperly relied on criminal history as a prohibited factor when varying above the Guidelines | Mobley: court improperly relied on criminal history to vary upward and rendered sentence substantively unreasonable | Government/District Court: court applied an upward departure under § 4A1.3(a), not a variance | Affirmed — court departed (not varied) and reliance on criminal history was proper for § 4A1.3(a) departure |
| Standard of review for unpreserved challenge to adequacy of explanation | Mobley: not applicable (did not object) | Court: review for plain error | Applied plain-error review and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review and adequacy of district court explanation for § 4A1.3 departure)
- United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2011) (procedure for upward departure under § 4A1.3 and when criminal history Category VI may be exceeded)
- United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court not required to mechanically reject each category en route to chosen level)
- United States v. Collins, 104 F.3d 143 (8th Cir. 1997) (adequacy of findings to support departure)
- United States v. Likens, 464 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing prior requirement for proportional/extraordinary justification for departures)
- United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2005) (same)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Supreme Court: post-Booker guidance that strict proportionality requirement for departures is inconsistent with Booker)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines remedial opinion affecting departure/variance review)