the sentence “to show an appropriate measured consequence for the extraordinary breaches of trust,” and to protect others from the risk the Defendant posed. The sentence length was not substantively unreasonable. In light of the Defendant’s criminal history—involving the commission of several similar crimes against similar victims—the revocations of supervision in his 1999 case, and the two revocations in the current case, there is support in the record for the district court’s conclusion that the Defendant represented a danger to his community, and that his repeated violations of supervised release warranted imposition of a more substantial term. These rationales support an upward departure from the Guidelines range. See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637
holding that a sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines range when the record supported the courts conclusion that the defendant was a danger to the community because he had been convicted of a crime that involved a threat against another person holding that district courts decision to exceed the advisory sentencing range in chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines ussg  7b14 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that despite the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines they remain the starting point and the initial benchmark of a district courts sentencing analysis the district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable guidelines range and keep that range in mind throughout the sentencing process and that failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range  or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceemdashincluding an explanation for any deviation from the guidelines range constitutes significant procedural error  holding that restitution is not a proper ground for departing downward from the guidelines range holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion although the defendant had been admonished incorrectly on the punishment range