United States v. Bordeaux
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6201
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bordeaux pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).
- Co-conspirator Baumann was charged and sentenced as the leader; Bordeaux’s other counts were dismissed.
- PSR used to assign an adjusted offense level of 17; criminal history category III; Guidelines range was 30–37 months.
- Bordeaux moved for downward departure for military service, PTSD, Agent Orange-related health issues, aging, and behaviors in the crime.
- District court denied the departure request and sentenced Bordeaux at the bottom of the range: 30 months; two years of supervised release; $100 assessment.
- Court stated age and health not warranting departure, noted Bordeaux’s service to country and tribe, and explained that sentence was at the low end of the range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error in sentencing | Bordeaux argues court failed to adequately consider military/PTSD, health, and other factors; failed to distinguish departure vs variance; and failed to provide sufficient rationale. | Court properly considered factors and did not commit procedural error. | No procedural error; court properly considered factors and provided adequate explanation. |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-range sentence | Sentence at the low end should reflect factors like service, health, age, and role. | Sentence within-range properly respects §3553(a) factors and is not substantively unreasonable. | Sentence within-range is presumptively reasonable; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (courts may consider arguments for departures but need not depart)
- Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for plain-error review in sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (mandatory vs advisory guidelines and need to explain sentencing decisions)
- Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error framework and sentencing procedures)
- Chase, 560 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing departure from variance)
- Clark, 563 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2009) (no lengthy explanations required for within-range sentences)
- Jones, 509 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentencing explanation standards)
- Lee, 553 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 2009) (explanation sufficiency for within-range rulings)
- Burns, 577 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive review of within-range sentences)
- Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)