are permissible departure factors; (2) whether the departure factors relied upon by the district court remove the defendant from the applicable Guideline heartland thus warranting a departure, (3) whether the record sufficiently supports the factual basis underlying the departure, and (4) whether the degree of departure is reasonable. United States v. Collins, 122 F.3d at 1303. If [a] factor [is] classified as ‘forbidden,’ see, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10 (race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, socio-eco-nomic status); U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12 (lack of guidance during youth); U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 (drug or alcohol dependence); U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12 (economic hardship), [it] can never provide a basis for departure and its consideration ends at this step. ' ■ United States v. Rybicki, 96 F.3d at 759 (<HOLDING>). If the Guidelines classify the factors as
holding that defendants responsibilities to son and wife both of whom have medical problems are discouraged as a basis for downward departure holding that while  5 g 13 a creates a presumption in favor of a consecutive sentence sentencing judges are free to depart from the guidelines and order a downward departure so long as they comply with the procedures required for downward departure in general outlined in 19 usc  3553c2 holding that the governments position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted holding that criminal defendants have a right to a jury trial as to the facts on which a court bases an upward departure holding that for the administrative position of the government to be substantially justified it must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact