United States v. James Winston Hayes
762 F.3d 1300
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hayes paid over $600,000 in bribes to Roy Johnson over four years to secure ACCESS Group Software contracts with ADPE.
- ACCESS earned >$14 million in gross income and ~ $5 million in profit from ADPE contracts.
- Hayes cooperated with the government after a subpoena and wore recording devices to aid the investigation.
- In 2008 Hayes pled guilty to bribery and money laundering and agreed to forfeiture of $5 million.
- The initial PS I calculated advisory guidelines range as 135–168 months (level 33, C1 I).
- The district court granted a §5K1.1 downward departure based on substantial assistance, reducing to an advisory range of 41–51 months and then imposed concurrent three-year probation with six to twelve months of home confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s downward departure to probation was reasonable | Government argues substantial assistance justifies substantial departure/deterrence | Hayes argues court abused discretion by using 41–51 month range and prosecutors’ framing | Vacated; remanded for resentencing within proper Guidelines range |
| Whether the §5K1.1 departure was calculated properly | Government contends departure method (level cut) is permissible | Hayes contends range 41–51 months has no legal basis and is arbitrary | Procedural error; sentence cannot be reviewed for substantive reasonableness |
| Whether invited error doctrine applies to shield the Government from reversal | Government argues no invited error; dissenting view says invited error occurred | Hayes’s sentence reflects procedural error induced by government | Invited-error doctrine bars relief; but majority remands for proper proceedings |
| Whether the sentence should be vacated or affirmed given 3553(a) factors | Government argues variance to 60 months meets §3553(a) factors | Hayes argues variance to probation fails to reflect seriousness and deterrence | Vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes three-step sentencing framework and need for explanation of variance/departure)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (guidelines as starting point; avoid treating them as mandatory)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (U.S. 2013) (requires anchoring sentencing decisions in Guidelines and proper justification for variance)
- United States v. McVay, 447 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2006) (after departure, must consider guidelines and §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for §3553(a) balancing; en banc)
- United States v. Livesay, 587 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (reversals where minimal deterrence and misapplied principles)
- United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) (guideline departure mechanics and need to relate to substantial assistance)