comment (n. 1), while “adjustments” are factored into the guidelines range. Id. at § lBl.l(e). The Guidelines Manual discusses “adjustments” and “departures” in different sections and recognizes that grounds for granting one are not always grounds for granting the other. Compare U.S.S.G. § 3 (discussing “Adjustments”) with U.S.S.G. § 5K (discussing “Departures”). Our court has previously differentiated between sentence adjustments (enhancements) and upward departures. United States v. Roberts, 64 Fed.Appx. 473, 474 (6th Cir.2003) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he deserved a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility while upholding district judge’s decision to depart upward based on defendant’s criminal history); United States v. Wright, 119 F.3d 390, 393 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). At least three other courts of appeal have
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by coneluding the plea would not adequately represent the defendants criminal conduct holding harmless any error in departing upward under ussg  4a13 where district court alternatively imposed reasonable sentence as an upward variance holding that court did not abuse its discretion by departing upwards where upward adjustment did not adequately reflect defendants torture of victim