United States v. Michael Bourquin, 966 F.3d 428

In August 2017 Michael Bourquin called the FBI and fabricated a plot to abduct, rape, and burn a former federal prosecutor, claiming an inmate named "Raymond" and OMC leadership were involved.
The FBI and other agencies immediately investigated: agents interviewed Bowman in prison, placed him in segregation and suspended contacts, alerted the Marshals Service (which provided 24/7 surveillance for the target and family), coordinated with local police and MDOC, reviewed video, and gave Bourquin a polygraph that led to his admission of lying.
Bourquin pleaded guilty to maliciously conveying false information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). The PSR recommended a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4) for a "substantial expenditure of funds."
At sentencing the government relied on descriptions of the multi-agency response and manpower involved but introduced no accounting or dollar figures for expenditures; the district court applied the 4-level enhancement nonetheless and sentenced Bourquin to 40 months.
On appeal Bourquin argued the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any "substantial expenditure of funds;" the Sixth Circuit reviewed the guideline application de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government proved a "substantial expenditure of funds" under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4)(B)	Bourquin: Government introduced no accounting or dollar figures; speculation about manpower and coordination is insufficient to show expenditures were substantial	Government: The immediate, multi‑agency response and allocation of numerous agents across jurisdictions shows a substantial expenditure of government funds warranting a 4‑level enhancement	The enhancement cannot stand: the government must present either a full accounting of expenditures or a partial accounting plus factual evidence enabling a reasonable assessment that the funds expended were substantial; here the government presented no expenditures and failed its burden; sentence vacated and remanded; government not permitted another chance to supplement the record

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Bullock, 526 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of guideline calculation as part of procedural-reasonableness review)
United States v. Byrd, 689 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2012) (government bears burden to prove sentencing enhancement by a preponderance)
United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir. 1992) (due process requires evidentiary basis beyond indictment for sentencing conduct)
United States v. Smith, 887 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1989) (confirming need for evidentiary support for sentencing enhancements)
United States v. Kirkpatrick, [citation="385 F. App'x 610"] (7th Cir. 2010) ("substantial" disruption is a matter of degree and fact‑specific)
United States v. Tackett, 193 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 1999) (interpreting unnecessary expenditure of governmental resources under §2J1.3)
United States v. Jarrar, [citation="99 F. App'x 726"] (6th Cir. 2004) (upholding enhancement under §2J1.3 without dollar accounting)
United States v. Goodman, 519 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2008) (government not entitled to additional opportunity to prove enhancement where it had notice and failed to present evidence)