United States v. Quiroz ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50129
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL RAMON QUIROZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-01-CR-207-ALL-SS
--------------------
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Ramon Quiroz appeals his sentence following pleading
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court
abused its discretion in departing upward three offense levels,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.
The district court found that Quiroz’s criminal history
category of VI underrepresented his prior conduct. The court
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-50129
-2-
also noted that Quiroz’s criminal history indicated little
likelihood that he would change. A district court’s decision to
depart from the guideline range is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265, 270 (5th Cir.
2002).
If the district court provides acceptable reasons for its
departure and the degree of departure is reasonable, the district
court has not abused its discretion. United States v. Route, 104
F.3d 59, 64 (5th Cir. 1997). A court’s determination that a
defendant’s criminal history category does not adequately reflect
the seriousness of his past criminal conduct is a finding of fact
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293,
1310 (5th Cir. 1993).
Quiroz argues that his criminal history was not serious and
egregious so as to warrant the departure. Quiroz was convicted
of 11 offenses in seven years. His record includes convictions
for a violent offense and several offenses that potentially
endangered others’ lives. This court has affirmed departures
much greater than that imposed on Quiroz for other non-violent
criminals. See, e.g., United States v. Rosogie, 21 F.3d 632,
634-35 (5th Cir. 1994).
Based on Quiroz’s extensive criminal history, the district
court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. The three-level
departure was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. The
sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.