offenders in each higher category.” Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d at 657 (citation omitted). If the district court reaches Category VI, the highest criminal history category, and it wishes to depart further, it should then move incrementally down the sentencing table to the next higher offense level until it finds the appropriate Guidelines range. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d at 887 (citing § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B)). While it is clear the district court need not engage in a “ritualistic exercise ... mechanically discussing] each criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects,” the court “must provide sufficient indicia of why the intermediary categories are inappropriate.” United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922, 931-32 (8th Cir.2008). Cf. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d at 658 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the district court was clearly
holding that when a defendant qualifies as a career felon it is not necessary to ascertain the defendants criminal history category because the sentencing guidelines mandate a criminal history category of vi holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding a district courts failure to specifically mention each intermediate criminal history category was not dispositive where its findings were adequate to explain the departure holding that request for departure in sentencing based on a criminal history category that overstated defendants record violated plea agreement that prohibited departure requests but did not stipulate to a specific criminal history category