More or less everyone who has looked at this from a guidelines sentencing POV have concluded it's unlikely, but Nick is really pushing the boundaries, almost as if he's trying to speedrun what justifies an upward deviation. Nothing he's charged with would ordinarily result in such a sentence.
Courts are often reluctant to do upward deviations because of the difficulty of justifying them and the opportunities for appeal. Upward deviations generally require factual findings, on the record, in a trial or at least an evidentiary hearing. The finder of fact, which is the jury or the judge in a bench trial, have to find facts that support that (after Booker/Apprendi and the huge revision in the use of sentencing guidelines mandated by those cases).
If Nick were actually trying to make a case justifying deviating upwards from sentencing guidelines, he would be the world champ of it.