United States v. Kevin Bordeaux, 108 F.4th 702

Kevin Bordeaux pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, using a firearm during a crime of violence, and assaulting a federal officer after shooting his girlfriend and engaging in a high-speed chase involving gunfire at law enforcement.
Bordeaux's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated his offense level as 29, Criminal History Category IV, with a guideline range of 121-151 months; an 84-month consecutive sentence was required for the firearm charge.
The district court sustained Bordeaux’s objection to part of his criminal history calculation, reducing his category to III, and calculated his range as 108-135 months (offense level 29, category III).
The district court sentenced Bordeaux to 132 months on one count, above the range that would have applied if the correct offense level (28) had been used; the correct range was 97-121 months.
Bordeaux appealed his sentence, alleging the guideline calculation error increased his sentencing range, affecting his substantial rights.
The government conceded the error but argued it caused no prejudice since the district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless.

Issue	Bordeaux's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court used the incorrect Guideline range in sentencing	Sentencing range miscalculated led to improper, higher sentence	Error was harmless; sentence would have been the same	Guideline range was miscalculated, affecting substantial rights; remand for resentencing required
Whether the error affected Bordeaux’s substantial rights	Reasonable probability of lower sentence under correct range	No reasonable probability of lower sentence	Error did affect substantial rights; reasonable probability of lower sentence under correct range
Whether the error seriously affected fairness/integrity of judicial proceedings	Yes, as sentence exceeded correct range by 11 months	No—district court would have imposed same term	Error did seriously affect fairness/integrity of proceedings

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (sets standard for reviewing departures from guidelines)
United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2009) (explains plain error review standard)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016) (incorrect guideline range typically satisfies substantial rights prong)
United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2008) (outlines when procedural guideline errors may not result in prejudice)
United States v. Bell, 477 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2007) (prohibits duplicative gun-related enhancements when sentencing for § 924(c) offenses)