not to obtain the highest possible sentenc trying to shift blame to his deceased mother and had not made what it considered legitimate efforts at restitution, which were both ultimately considered with regard to whether Andrews had accepted responsibility. The court highlighted its concerns regarding the disparity between federal drug and fraud crime sentences under the guidelines, which was listed under one of the four major sub-point justifications in the written opinion supporting an upward departure. Finally, the court compared the case to another recently-upheld upward departure, which was also listed as a major sub-point justification in the subsequent written opinion. 5 . See 501 U.S. at 136, 111 S.Ct. 2182. 6 . Cf. United States v. Knight, 76 F.3d 86, 88 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The government argued that the fact that
holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the case because record demonstrated that counsel did in fact prepare for trial and interview witnesses recognizing potential upward adjustment beyond that provided by guidelines for aggravating role in the offense holding that sentencing enhancements and sentencing departures are not synonymous and that a waiver for upward departures imposed by the court does not permit the challenging of sentence enhancements recognizing that sentencing guidelines may provide enhancements for mere possession of firearm during other offense holding that adequate notice exists for upward enhancements for factors presently in the guidelines to allow an average defense counsel adequately to prepare for sentencing