United States v. Alan Leschyshyn, 705 F. App'x 340

Defendant Alan Michael Leschyshyn pleaded guilty to conspiracy (wire/mail/bank fraud), conspiracy to launder money, one count of wire fraud, and seven counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud.
District court sentenced him to 235 months (within Guidelines) on each count, concurrent, and ordered $6,477,451.85 restitution.
Leschyshyn argued on appeal that the district court procedurally erred by deeming his mitigation evidence irrelevant and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable for failing to give his mitigation sufficient weight.
The mitigation evidence included his age, lack of criminal history, and asserted mental condition/diminished capacity (including medication side effects).
The district court acknowledged those arguments but emphasized Leschyshyn’s leadership role, use of sophisticated means, and $23 million in attributable losses, giving greater weight to punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by finding mitigation evidence irrelevant	Leschyshyn: court ignored or refused to consider mitigation evidence	Government: court considered §3553(a) factors and had discretion to weigh evidence	No procedural error; court considered §3553(a) and had discretion in weighing mitigation
Whether the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable for under-weighting mitigation	Leschyshyn: court should have given his mitigation significant weight, lowering the sentence	Government: sentencing factors (leadership, sophistication, large loss) justified the sentence	Sentence substantively reasonable; presumption of reasonableness not rebutted

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness and need to consider §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (when presumption is rebutted)
United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2010) (standards of review discussion in sentencing appeals)
United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2014) (district court's awareness of discretion to consider mitigation)
United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court does not err by how it weighs §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2012) (disagreement over factor weighting insufficient to disturb within-Guidelines sentence)