act of aberrant behavior.” 13. According to the Ninth Circuit, a case such as United States v. Carey, 895 F.2d 318 (7th Cir.1990), falls at the other end of the spectrum. In Carey, defendant engaged in a check-kiting scheme over a period of at least fifteen months. The Seventh Circuit held that “the defendant’s actions could not be characterized as aberrant behavior because they consisted of overt acts taking place over a prolonged period of time.” Id. at 325. Even the Ninth Circuit acknowledges that Carey would not qualify as “a single act of aberrant behavior.” 14. Under the Ninth Circuit’s analysis, Russell and Carey represent the terminal points on its “aberrant behavior spectrum.” See, e.g., Dickey, 924 F.2d at 838. See also United States v. Andruska, 964 F.2d 640 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The other cases which the Ninth Circuit has
recognizing the ninth circuits aberrant behavior spectrum recognizing that aberrant criminal behavior may justify downward variance recognizing limitations existence in other circuits holding there was no jurisdiction to review district courts discretionary refusal to depart downward on the grounds that defendants conduct constituted a single act of aberrant behavior holding that the enactment of the one central reason standard invalidates the ninth circuits prior at least in part analysis