United States v. Bossany, 678 F.3d 603

Bossany pleaded guilty to money laundering and conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud and was sentenced to two concurrent 90-month terms.
He challenged the sentence on appeal, arguing for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and that the conspiracy sentence exceeded the 60-month statutory maximum.
Bossany aided Chip Factory and the Coles in defrauding Best Buy via the Parts Procurement Network; he helped conceal the scheme and received money and gifts.
He warned the Coles about investigations, supplied confidential information, and ultimately testified for the government at the Coles’ trial, where his testimony changed on cross-examination.
At sentencing the court found obstruction of justice and denied the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, calculating a range of 151–188 months and then imposing concurrent 90-month sentences for the two counts.
The district court had erroneously imposed 90 months on the conspiracy count, which had a 60-month maximum, triggering a plain-error review on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether obstruction of justice precludes acceptance	Bossany claims extraordinary circumstances justify acceptance.	Bossany contends extraordinary circumstances justify acceptance despite obstruction.	No; perjury outweighed, court did not clearly err in denial of acceptance.
Whether the obstruction enhancement and lack of acceptance were plain error but harmless	Obstruction and lack of acceptance should yield a lower sentence as no clear acceptance.	Obstruction warranted enhancement; lack of acceptance not clearly erroneous.	Plain error found on the conspiracy sentence, but prejudice not shown; no resentencing required.
Whether the conspiracy sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and plain-error review applies	Conspiracy count capped at 60 months; the 90-month sentence exceeded statutory max.	The overall punishment would be the same; sentencing could be valid under catch-all arrangements.	Plain error but not prejudicial; the 90-month total would have been imposed anyway due to the money-laundering count; remand denied.

United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (credibility standard for acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 1999) (extraordinary-circumstances exception to acceptance-of-responsibility)
United States v. Diaz, 296 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc consideration of §5G1.2(d) impact on total punishment)
United States v. Gillon, 348 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2003) (consecutive versus concurrent sentencing under §5G1.2)
United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2001) (plain-error standard for misapplied sentencing law)
United States v. Gray, 332 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2003) (precedent on non-prejudice remand for improper max sentencing)