evidence to support the upward departure on the grounds articulated by the district court, and thus, the district court committed no error. As to the amount of departure, we give great deference to a district court’s determination of the amount of departure, as that court has the “superior feel for the case.” United States v. Otto, 64 F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir.1995). Kingston’s comparison of his case to factually incongruent cases does not support his assertion that an upward departure amounting to twice the guideline range is unreasonable. Given the number of permissible reasons for upward departure, we find that the sentence imposed by the district court was not unreasonable. II. Downward Departure. In his motion for downward departure, Kingston claims his payment to th Cir.2000)
holding that a district court may depart upward based upon a significant number of fraudulent schemes conducted by the defendant holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category holding that a court may depart upward based upon a third partys injury in an assault case holding that the district court must give parties notice of intent to depart recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart