United States v. Rene Boucher, 937 F.3d 702

Background

Senator Rand Paul was tackled from behind by neighbor Rene Boucher while mowing; the impact broke six ribs, damaged a lung, and caused recurrent pneumonia and chronic pain.
Boucher pleaded guilty to assaulting a member of Congress, 18 U.S.C. § 351(e). The PSR applied a five-level enhancement for serious bodily injury and a three-level reduction for acceptance, yielding a Guidelines range of 21–27 months.
At sentencing the district court varied downward to 30 days’ imprisonment, plus community service, supervised release, and a fine, citing the dispute as an isolated neighbor disagreement and emphasizing Boucher’s education, military service, community standing, and lack of criminal history.
The Government appealed, arguing the 30‑day sentence was substantively unreasonable given the large variance from the Guidelines and the severity of the victim’s injuries.
The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding the district court failed to give sufficiently compelling justification for the extreme below‑Guidelines variance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 30‑day sentence was substantively unreasonable	The Government: 30 days is an unreasonably small sentence (95% below Guidelines); court gave insufficient justification for extreme variance	Boucher: Variance justified by isolated neighbor dispute, his background, and local misdemeanor practice (30 days)	Vacated and remanded: variance unsupported by sufficiently compelling § 3553(a) justification
Whether the offense falls outside the guideline “heartland”	Gov: Conduct (serious bodily injury) falls within § 2A2.2 heartland; apolitical motive does not distinguish the case	Boucher: Motive was apolitical and this was an isolated property dispute	Court: Motive alone did not place the case outside the Guideline heartland
Whether defendant’s education/community ties justify a large downward variance	Gov: These are disfavored factors under the Guidelines and § 994(e); relying on them risks unwarranted disparity	Boucher: His exemplary background, medical career, church service, and military record justify leniency	Court: The district court over‑weighted privileged background factors without showing they were unusually relevant
Whether court adequately considered general deterrence and sentence disparities	Gov: Court failed to address general deterrence for attacks on elected officials and national sentencing data/comparators	Boucher: Specific deterrence sufficient; pointed to local practice and state misdemeanor outcomes	Court: District court did not adequately address general deterrence or unwarranted national disparities given the large variance

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (guidance on reviewing district court variances and required justification for major deviations)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (need to explain why a case falls outside the Guidelines’ "heartland")
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (respect for Guidelines as a starting point and when closer review is required)
United States v. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012) (vacating variance where court failed to distinguish the defendant from similar cases)
United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043 (6th Cir. 2019) (clarifying substantive‑reasonableness review framework)
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) (discussing weight the district court gives § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Musgrave, 761 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2014) (importance of general deterrence when varying downward)
United States v. Peppel, 707 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court must tie sentence to the seriousness of the offense)
United States v. Warren, [citation="771 F. App'x 637"] (6th Cir. 2019) (reversing variance based solely on factor already accounted for in Guidelines)
United States v. Malone, 503 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2007) (impermissible to base federal sentence on likely state sentence)