United States v. Ulises Alvarado, 20-1762

Ulises Alvarado pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 after two 1998 unlawful sexual conduct convictions required registration.
A Presentence Report placed him in Criminal History Category I and total offense level 10, yielding an advisory range of 6–12 months.
The Government moved for an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), arguing the guideline range under‑represented his criminal history and recidivism risk and sought CH VI (24–30 months).
The district court granted an upward departure but only to CH III (advisory range 10–16 months) and sentenced Alvarado to 15 months imprisonment plus five years supervised release.
The district court emphasized Alvarado’s lengthy record, including a 2019 intoxicated threat to kill hospital workers and aggressive conduct toward law enforcement, as grounds for departure and considered § 3553(a) factors.
Alvarado appealed, arguing the upward departure was an abuse of discretion and that the court failed adequately to explain or to weigh mitigating factors (youth, parental divorce, early alcohol exposure, and COVID‑19 risk).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) for under‑represented criminal history	Alvarado: departure was an abuse of discretion because many prior convictions were too remote to warrant upward departure	Government/District Court: remote but relevant dated offenses and recent violent/threatening conduct show seriousness and likelihood of reoffending, justifying departure	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; departure permissible under § 4A1.3(a) and sentence within advisory range is presumptively reasonable
Whether the district court inadequately explained or failed to weigh mitigating factors (youth, COVID‑19, family history)	Alvarado: court did not properly consider or give weight to mitigating circumstances and pandemic risks	District Court: explicitly considered mitigating factors, acknowledged them, and reasonably rejected generalized COVID risk as a basis for a lower sentence	Affirmed — court provided a reasoned explanation and adequately weighed mitigating factors

United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviews upward departures for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Cooke, 853 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2017) (dated offenses may be considered for upward departure under § 4A1.3)
United States v. Jones, 639 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 2011) (a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must provide a reasoned basis for its sentencing decision)