quotation marks omitted)). It also provides ample support for the district court’s decision to vary upward. See United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1249 (10th Cir.2012) (in upholding upward variance, noting that “it was reasonable for the court to read the police reports as showing conduct that fit into a pattern of criminal behavior involving the use of firearms”); United States v. Pinson, 542 F.3d 822, 836 (10th Cir.2008) (permissible for district court to vary upward based on juvenile misconduct); see also United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1239 (11th Cir.2009) (upholding district court’s decision to vary upward to the statutory maximum based primarily on defendant’s “single-minded devotion to a life of crime”); United States v. Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). And, given the gravity of this criminal
holding that defendants history of deportation and illegal reentry together with his serious criminal record justified the district courts upward variance holding that an upward variance or departure in the sentence imposed on a career offender based on  3553a factors including criminal history was substantively and procedurally reasonable holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category 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 harmless any error in departing upward under ussg  4a13 where district court alternatively imposed reasonable sentence as an upward variance