United States v. Roman O. Conaway
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7529
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Conaway made threatening calls to an imam and officials, culminating in a large-scale standoff at his home.
- The hoax bomb consisted of inert putty bricks; no explosive device was present.
- Conaway pleaded guilty to making false threats with an explosive device and influencing a federal official by threat.
- The district court applied multiple upward adjustments under the guidelines and sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment.
- Conaway challenged the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the district court’s reasoning and adjustments were scrutinized on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3A1.2 official-victim adjustment was proper | Conaway argues threats were general, not aimed at officials | District court found plan targeted law enforcement to draw officials | Appropriate; facts support official-victim adjustment |
| Whether the sentence above the advisory range is substantively reasonable | Three-month upward variance was excessive given mental illness | Court weighed factors and nature of offense; variance fits 3553(a) factors | Reasonable under 3553(a) given the offense and public-protection concerns |
| Whether diminished mental capacity justified a lower sentence under 5K2.13 | Evidence of mental illness warranted reduced sentence | District court properly rejected significant reduction | District court did not error in declining 5K2.13 departure; public-protection concerns outweighed mental-illness mitigation |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the variance from the guidelines | Court did not sufficiently justify departure | Court thoroughly discussed § 3553(a) factors and justified weight given to factors | Yes; the court adequately explained rationale for above-range sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (alarmingly, requires explanation for non-guideline sentences)
- Busara v. United States, 551 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court may weigh factors within the bounds of reason)
- Pellman v. United States, 668 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2012) (clear-error review for factual findings supporting adjustments)
- Miranda v. United States, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (presentations of mental illness; respect for court’s consideration of experts)
- United States v. Williams, 520 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2008) (application of official-acts adjustment to government victims)