United States v. King, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25362

King pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, admitting distribution of at least 750 grams of meth and 455 pounds of marijuana.
The district court sentenced King to 200 months after calculating offense level 34 and criminal history category VI, then applying career-offender status under § 4B1.1 because of prior burglary and kidnapping convictions.
Because offense punishable up to life, career-offender status raised the offense level to 37, which was reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsibility.
The government moved for upward departure under § 4A1.3 for under-represented criminal history and for downward departure for substantial assistance; King moved for a downward variance for addictions.
The court granted an upward departure to level 35, creating a guideline range of 292-365 months, then varied downward for addictions to 320 months and granted a downward departure for substantial assistance to reach 200 months.
On appeal, King challenged only the upward departure under § 4A1.3; the court held the departure was within its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether upward departure under § 4A1.3 was warranted	King argues no basis under § 4A1.3(a)(1)-(4) to depart upward.	King contends current history already punished by career-offender status.	Upward departure affirmed; district court acted within discretion.
Whether the district court properly used non-career-offender convictions for departure	King contends non-career offenses should not drive departure.	Government argues § 4A1.3(a)(2) supports departure based on prior sentences not used in computing criminal history.	Court approved use of non-career offenses to support departure under § 4A1.3(a)(2).
Whether career-offender status precludes additional upward departure	King asserts career-offender status already punished him adequately.	Government maintains ongoing violence pattern justifies extra departure.	Career-offender status does not bar upward departure when history does not adequately reflect defendant's past.
Whether Jones supports a different departure standard	King notes Jones allows a larger departure but disputes proportionality.	Government argues Jones is not controlling and that departures may differ by case.	Jones does not set the ceiling; district court appropriately tailored the departure.

United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward departure appropriate when history under-reflects seriousness despite armed career criminal status)
United States v. Greger, 339 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003) (all careers are not the same; unusual cases warrant departure within discretion)