United States v. Gregory Gouldman
699 F. App'x 176
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gregory Dustin Gouldman pleaded guilty to one count of extortion under color of official right (18 U.S.C. § 1951).
- District court imposed a 60-month sentence following an upward departure from the Guidelines range (to 51–63 months).
- The court based the upward departure on USSG §§ 5K2.0(a)(1)(A), 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) and § 2C1.1, Application Note 7, citing aggravating and unidentified circumstances (danger to the public from corruption).
- The court rejected Gouldman’s proposed application of the federal contraband Guideline and distinguished this case from United States v. Bellamy, finding more egregious facts merited a larger (seven-level) departure.
- The district court expressly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and explained its departure and sentence at sentencing.
- Gouldman appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the upward departure; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally and substantively erred in imposing an upward departure to 51–63 months (resulting in a 60‑month sentence) | Gouldman: court failed to adequately explain the upward departure and the sentence is substantively greater than necessary under § 3553(a). | Government: departure was justified by aggravating/unidentified circumstances (public danger from corruption), properly explained, and § 3553(a) was considered. | Court affirmed: no procedural error; departure properly grounded and explained; sentence substantively reasonable under abuse‑of‑discretion review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard and distinguishes procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (addresses review of departures and reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court should address nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence and explain rejections)
- United States v. Bellamy, 264 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2001) (discusses provenance and scope of departures to reflect aggravating conduct)