month prior to the offense of conviction. See Figaro, 935 F.2d at 7 (“[Rjeeency of a prior offense may be considered an indicator of increased likelihood of recidivism, exacerbating the seriousness of a defendant’s criminal history.”). Given his recent, persistent, and escalating record of violent behavior, see United States v. Doe, 18 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir.1994) (noting that departure was warranted where defendant’s past criminal conduct demonstrated “significantly unusual penchant for serious criminality”), we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision that an upward departure was warranted because Hardy’s pre-departure CHC underrepresented the seriousness of his past criminal conduct and the likelihood of recidivism. See Koon, — U.S. at ---, 116 S.Ct. at 2046-47 (<HOLDING>). b) Offense-Related Characteristics (§ 5K2.0)
holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference holding that district court is entitled to substantial deference in its determination that particular facts of case implicate a departure factor holding that the district court was entitled to deference in its application of  4b12 of the sentencing guidelines in a case where the underlying facts were undisputed holding ceq regulations entitled to substantial deference