United States v. Mark Johnson, 20-3394

Mark A. Johnson pled guilty to wire fraud and was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release.
The district court announced and imposed an upward departure from criminal history category IV to VI under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, increasing the guidelines range from 24–30 to 33–41 months.
The court relied on Johnson’s three-decade history of dishonesty and found a likelihood of future dishonest crimes; the court gave written notice it was considering an upward departure.
Johnson challenged the sentence on three grounds: (1) inadequate explanation for the upward departure, (2) reliance on speculative suspicions about a friend/co-defendant (Anthony Bertino), and (3) substantive unreasonableness of the 41‑month term.
The district court also stated it would have imposed the same sentence by varying under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of explanation for upward departure under U.S.S.G. §4A1.3	Johnson: court failed to adequately explain rejecting CHC IV (and V) when departing to VI	Gov./court: explanation was adequate; court need not mechanically discuss every category; any error harmless because sentence also rests on a §3553(a) variance	Affirmed — explanation adequate as to IV and V; any procedural error harmless given §3553(a) variance
Reliance on speculative suspicions about Anthony Bertino	Johnson: court relied on an unsupported “sweetheart deal” theory and impermissible speculation about Bertino	Gov.: Johnson did not preserve a specific objection; even if mentioned, remarks were not the principal basis for the sentence	Affirmed — no reversible error; remarks were suspicious but not a principal basis for sentencing
Substantive reasonableness of 41‑month sentence	Johnson: court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors and over-weighted unsupported considerations	Gov./court: court considered §3553(a) factors and mitigators; within Guidelines and presumptively reasonable	Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable and within the Guidelines

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing sentencing decisions)
United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court must adequately explain why intermediate criminal history categories fail under §4A1.3, but need not mechanically discuss each category)
United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012) (procedural error in upward departure is harmless when the district court also bases sentence on a §3553(a) variance)
United States v. Herr, 202 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2000) (courts may consider incorrigibility and past leniency’s ineffectiveness when assessing likelihood of reoffense)
United States v. Robinson, 662 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain‑error review applies when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
United States v. Eagle Pipe, 911 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 2019) (comments about possible other wrongdoing are not reversible absent showing they were a principal basis for the sentence)
United States v. Meadows, 866 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2017) (within‑Guidelines sentences are presumptively substantively reasonable)