United States v. David William Herriford

972 F.2d 1345 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David William HERRIFORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10575. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 19, 1992. * Decided Aug. 26, 1992. 1 Before KOZINSKI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT, Senior District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Identification of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 as a basis for upward departure in both the presentence report and the probation officer's memorandum provided adequate notice of a possible upward departure. See United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Nuno-Para, 877 F.2d 1409, 1415 (9th Cir.1989). 4 The departure was valid under United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745 (9th Cir.1991). Section 4A1.3 furnished a "legal authority to depart." Id. at 746 . There was no "clear error [in the] factual findings supporting the existence of the ... circumstance[s]" supporting the…