Aftеr Bon Levi pled guilty to mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, he was sentenced to thirty-seven months. The district court 1 departed upward on the grounds that his criminal history category did not adequately reflect his prior record or potential for recidivism. Levi contends on appeal that the departure and sentence were unreasonable and that the district court did not sufficiently detail its reasons. We affirm.
Levi was involved in selling fraudulent business licenses. These licenses, which cost between $30,000 and $68,000, purported to give their holders a right to a warehouse or delivеry route for disposable camera sales. An indictment alleged that Levi knowingly made false representations thаt the license fee would be used to develop personal delivery routes, that there was sufficient capitаl to run the business, and that the licensees would receive a weekly income in exchange for their services. The indictment also alleged that Levi had lied about the financial stability and nature of the business and that he had used interstate аnd foreign wire facilities to carry out his fraudulent scheme.
The parties entered into a plea agreement which was not binding on the court. In it Levi’s total offense level was assessed at fifteen and his criminal history at Category I, with a guidelinеs range of eighteen to twenty-four months. Under the guidelines, his fourteen prior Australian convictions were not included in the criminal history calculation, but the presentence report indicated that they could constitute a basis for an uрward departure. 2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(h) (1998).
At the sentencing hearing, the court observed that Levi had Australian convictions for various fraud offenses, stealing, drunk driving, reckless driving, false pretenses, resisting arrest, and assault which could be a basis for departure. Defense counsel suggested that any upward departure should be slight, that one conviction *679 was actually a civil offense, аnd that it was unclear from the Australian records whether Levi had served any time on one conviction. The court found that a criminal history category of I did not adequately reflect either the seriousness of Levi’s past criminal conduct or his likelihood of recidivism, and that the nature and number of previous convictions indicated that Levi would likely continuе to engage in criminal behavior. Levi could have been assessed seven points if his three most recent Australian convictions had been counted in the original criminal history calculation which would have placed him in Category IV with a range of thirty to thirty-seven months. The court decided to depart upwards and sentenced Levi to thirty-seven months.
We reviеw a decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines for abuse of discretion.
Koon v. United States,
The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Levi as if he were in Category IV. It sufficiently explained why Category I did not adequately represent his criminal history or his likelihood to recidivate, and the court was not required to compare Levi explicitly to other offenders in that category before departing upward.
See United States v. Collins,
The district court did not err in considering Levi’s entire foreign criminal record. Even offenses which are minor and dissimilar to thе offense of conviction may be considered as evidence of a risk of recidivism if they evince a defendant’s “obvious incorrigibility.”
United States v. Herr,
. Finally, Levi contends that the court erred becausе it inaccurately calculated how many points he would have been assessed if his three most recent Australian convictions had been computed in his initial criminal history calculation. A sentencing court’s “determinations with respect to the offenses in a criminal history computation are factual determinations and are subject to a ‘clеarly erroneous’ standard of review.”
United States v. Covington,
Accordingly, the judgment of thе district court is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
. Section 4A1.2(h) precludes foreign convictions from being used in calculating a delen-dant's criminal history. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(h). A court may consider such’ convictions when determining whether an upward departure is appropriate, however. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.