United States v. Kevin Carden
678 F. App'x 106
4th Cir.2017Background
- Kevin and Beverly Carden owned AccuPay, a payroll service that received client funds to pay employees and remit payroll taxes but diverted those funds to their personal accounts.
- Kevin pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of filing a false tax return; Beverly pled guilty to mail fraud and filing a false tax return.
- The district court calculated Guidelines ranges: Kevin 57–71 months; Beverly 46–57 months.
- The court imposed upward variance sentences: Kevin 72 months, Beverly 60 months.
- The court explained the variance based on the long-term nature of the fraud, extensive victim impact, and need for deterrence, after considering § 3553(a) factors and defense mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward-variant sentences were substantively unreasonable | Cardens argued the sentences were greater than necessary and unreasonable | Government argued sentences were justified by offense seriousness, victim harm, and deterrence | The Fourth Circuit held the upward variances were substantively reasonable and affirmed |
| Whether the district court adequately considered mitigating arguments | Cardens argued court failed to give proper weight to mitigation | Government noted court considered mitigation and § 3553(a) factors | Court found the district court had considered mitigation and provided a reasoned basis |
| Whether the extent of variance was excessive | Cardens argued the divergence from Guidelines was too large | Government argued only a slight upward variance was warranted by facts | Court held the degree of variance was reasonable given fraud’s duration and impact |
| Whether appellate review standard was properly applied | Cardens argued abuse of discretion | Government urged deference to sentencing court | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences and district court discretion)
- United States v. Diosdado–Star, 630 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011) (district court flexibility to impose sentences outside Guidelines)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must provide a reasoned basis showing consideration of parties’ arguments)
- United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014) (reviewing variant sentences for reasonableness as to decision and extent of divergence)