United States v. Rossignol
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4125
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Rossignol pled guilty to (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and (2) failing to report importation of >$10,000; offenses involved cross-border smuggling between New Brunswick and Maine/Texas.
- He transported cash and cocaine across the U.S.–Canada border for co-conspirators "A" and "B," and on the arrest trip carried ∼$300,000 that he failed to report.
- Investigation showed Rossignol also transported several handguns into Canada at co-conspirators' requests; the PSR applied a two-level dangerous-weapons enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
- PSR calculated a guidelines range of 135–168 months; district court adopted that calculation but sentenced Rossignol to 120 months (below guidelines). Defense requested 84 months; government sought 150 months.
- Rossignol appealed, arguing his 120-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court allegedly gave insufficient weight to his age (61), lack of criminal history, community standing, and that the weapons enhancement created unwarranted disparities with co-conspirators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Gov: sentence is reasonable given offense seriousness and enhancements | Rossignol: court gave insufficient weight to age, no prior record, community service, and created disparity via weapons enhancement | Affirmed: sentence is substantively reasonable; district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and emphasized breach of public trust |
| Application of dangerous-weapon enhancement and resulting disparity | Gov: enhancement supported by conduct; disparity explained by cooperation differences | Rossignol: enhancement unfair because he only carried guns for others and co-conspirators didn’t get enhancement | Held: Rossignol waived procedural challenge; court reasonably distinguished co-defendants (they cooperated) so disparity not improper |
| Consideration of defendant’s mitigating characteristics | Gov: court considered but reasonably gave less weight to some mitigating factors | Rossignol: court ignored or underweighted age, community ties, lack of prior record | Held: district court expressly considered these factors and permissibly emphasized breach of trust and repeated criminal conduct |
| Parsimony/overall sentence no greater than necessary | Gov: 120 months appropriate and below guidelines | Rossignol: 120 months violates parsimony principle; lesser sentence would suffice | Held: because sentence falls within the range of reasonable outcomes, it does not violate the parsimony principle |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cintrón-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (use of plea colloquy, PSR, and sentencing transcript in factual summary)
- United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir. 2014) (framework for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (substantive-reasonableness standard: plausible rationale and defensible result)
- United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 470 F.3d 443 (1st Cir. 2006) (cooperator reductions do not render non-cooperator’s sentence unreasonable)
- United States v. Deppe, 509 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2007) (district court’s choice of emphasis among §3553(a) factors is permissible)
- United States v. Narváez-Soto, 773 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2014) (sentence within the universe of reasonable sentences satisfies parsimony principle)