## Facts

- Anthony L. Croom had an extensive record, including juvenile adjudications for battery and child molestation and later adult convictions including burglary.
- The burglary conviction made Croom a felon, which barred him from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Police encountered Croom carrying a semi-automatic weapon; after he fled, officers recovered the firearm and he was charged federally as a felon in possession.
- Croom was released pending proceedings, and about ten days later he committed an armed robbery of a fast-food restaurant, using a gun, forcing employees into a walk-in meat locker, and threatening to shoot if they did not comply.
- Croom ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm; a third firearms count was dismissed under the plea agreement.
- The presentence report calculated an offense level of 28 and criminal history category IV, producing a Guidelines range of 110–137 months.
- The district court imposed 160 months after departing upward to criminal history category VI, citing (among other things) juvenile convictions that did not receive criminal-history points, the short time between release and reoffending, and what the court viewed as an escalating course of dangerous conduct.
- The district court did not explain why category V would be inadequate before moving from category IV to category VI.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court permissibly departed upward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) based on Croom’s criminal record and rapid reoffending, including reliance on juvenile adjudications too old to be counted in the criminal-history score.
2. Whether the district court adequately explained the extent of the departure, including its decision to move from criminal history category IV to category VI without addressing category V.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- The court held that the district court could not justify the departure by treating stale juvenile adjudications—excluded from the criminal-history computation by the Guidelines’ time limits—as a reason to increase Croom’s criminal history category.
- The court indicated that other factors cited by the district court, such as the very short time between release and new serious crimes and the violent course of conduct (including the restaurant robbery while on release), could support a conclusion that category IV understated the likelihood of future crimes.
- Because the sentencing rationale mixed an improper ground with potentially proper grounds, the appellate court could not be sure the same sentence would have been imposed absent the error.
- The court also faulted the explanation of the departure’s size, noting the failure to justify skipping category V on the way to category VI.
- On remand, the district court was permitted to reconsider and could impose the same sentence only if supported by proper reasons and an adequate explanation tied to the Guidelines structure.

## Legal Principles

- A sentence outside the Guidelines range requires an identified circumstance not adequately taken into account by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b).
- U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 permits an upward departure when reliable information shows the assigned criminal history category substantially understates the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal record or the likelihood of future crimes.
- A sentencing court may not use stale juvenile adjudications as a basis for departure when the Guidelines, through explicit time limits, already reflect the Commission’s decision not to count them in the criminal-history score.
- Rapid recidivism—committing serious crimes shortly after release or while on release—may be considered in evaluating whether the criminal history category understates the likelihood of future criminal conduct.
- When departing under § 4A1.3, the court must explain the degree of departure with reference to the criminal history categories, including why intermediate categories are inadequate when the court moves more than one category.

## Conclusion

United States v. Croom held that although Croom’s quick return to serious, dangerous crime could support an upward departure for underrepresented recidivism risk, the district court’s sentence had to be vacated because it relied in part on stale juvenile adjudications the Guidelines intentionally did not count and because it did not adequately explain the extent of the departure, including the move from criminal history category IV directly to category VI.


United States v. Croom, 50 F.3d 433 (1995)