to § 2J1.6 does not preclude the district court’s upward departure under § 5K2.21, because the former punishes defendants like Gonzalez for failing to appear at trial while the latter allows upward departures based on the conduct underlying the dismissed charge. See U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6 cmt. background (2005); United States v. Harper, 932 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir.1991). Yet, the district court’s citation to § 5K2.21 in its written statement of reasons is problematic because the record does not support a finding that Gonzalez engaged in any specific conduct alleged in the dismissed charges. Upward departures based on § 5K2.21 require a finding that the defendant engaged in the conduct underlying the dismissed charges. See United States v. Bailey, 169 Fed.Appx. 815, 825 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The PSR does not describe the facts of the
holding that uncharged conduct described in psr and which was discussed by the court at sentencing was sufficient to support an upward departure under  5k221 holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure holding that district courts error was not harmless because the court relied on an improper factor in imposing an upward departure holding that intention to consider an upward departure transmitted with six days notice in advance of sentencing by fax was sufficient holding that there was sufficient notice when the psr listed factors for but did not recommend departure for one codefendant