United States v. Kent Sorenson
705 F. App'x 481
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kent Sorenson, former Iowa state senator, accepted $132,915.47 from committees tied to two 2012 presidential campaigns in exchange for political endorsements.
- At least one committee failed to report the payments to the FEC; Sorenson denied the payments during a sworn deposition.
- Sorenson pleaded guilty to: (1) willfully causing false FEC expenditure reports (52 U.S.C. § 30104 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 2) and (2) falsifying records to obstruct a federal investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1519).
- District court applied an 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.8(b)(1) based on the total value of illegal transactions, producing a Guidelines range of 24–30 months, then departed downward and sentenced Sorenson to 15 months.
- Sorenson appealed, arguing (1) the court miscalculated the value because it should credit campaign work, (2) the court should have varied downward for that work, and (3) the court improperly considered his officeholder status at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sorenson) | Defendant's Argument (United States / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of § 2C1.8(b)(1) enhancement based on value of illegal transactions | Court should credit value of campaign work, lowering the dollar value and thus offense level | Enhancement correctly applied to total payments received; Guidelines calculation stands | Even if enhancement misapplied, any error was harmless because court relied on § 3553(a) factors and would have imposed same sentence |
| Whether district court should have granted a downward variance for campaign work | Campaign work reduced net harm and warranted a lower sentence | Court considered work but found it did not diminish harm or merit variance | Refusal to vary was not an abuse of discretion; court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors |
| Consideration of officeholder status at sentencing | Considering officeholder status is an improper socioeconomic-type factor | Court considered status to explain seriousness and abuse of public trust; precedent allows considering abuse of position | No abuse of discretion; considering status was permissible because Sorenson abused his office to facilitate the offense |
| Harmlessness of any Guidelines calculation error | Miscalculation affected Guidelines range and sentence | Detailed § 3553(a) reasoning demonstrated same result regardless of Guidelines math | Any Guidelines error was harmless in light of the district court’s independent sentencing explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dace, 842 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2016) (detailed § 3553(a) explanation can render Guidelines error harmless)
- United States v. Hammond, 698 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for variances)
- United States v. Mees, 640 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2011) (prohibition on considering socioeconomic status at sentencing, with limits)
- United States v. Chandler, 732 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2013) (permitted consideration of defendant’s position when that position was abused to facilitate the offense)
- United States v. Goldman, 447 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2006) (courts may consider officeholder status when sentencing a public-corruption defendant)
For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s 15-month sentence.