United States v. Stevenson, 686 F.3d 32

Prosperi and Stevenson were Aggregate Industries employees convicted of mail fraud, highway project fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the government related to the Big Dig concrete shipments.
Aggregate allegedly supplied nonconforming concrete and used 10/9 loads and dummy tickets to conceal noncompliance from project inspectors.
Loss amount became pivotal in calculating the Guidelines' total offense level and the resulting GSR.
District court adopted the government’s loss figure of $5.2 million but stated it would not let loss drive sentencing, and sentenced the defendants to non-incarceratory terms.
Defendants appealed the substantive reasonableness of the sentences under Gall, arguing the court erred in relying on loss and in considering corporate culture.
Courts reviewed the district court’s explanation for variance under an abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly varied from the GSR.	Government argues large variance lacks plausible justification.	Prosperi/Stevenson contend variance justified by loss proxy and personal circumstances.	Reasonable under deferential review; court provided plausible explanation.
Was the loss amount a valid proxy for culpability and sentencing?	Government contends loss figure supports higher punishment.	Defendants argue loss overstated culpability given project certification.	Court could limit loss’s role; not allowed to drive sentencing absent clear connection.
Did the district court err by considering a corporate culture as the basis for punishment?	Government argues corporate culture shows broader culpability.	Court used culture to distinguish personal culpability, not excuse it.	Not an error; court properly treated corporate culture as context, not sole basis.
Did personal family circumstances justify a non-incarceratory sentence?	Unclear deterrence and public harm warrant incarceration.	Prosperi/Stevenson claim compelling family hardships justify deviation.	Yes, factors admissible and reasonable under Booker/Kimbrough framework.
Was deterrence adequately served by non-incarceratory sentences?	Incarceration better serves general deterrence for white-collar crime.	Non-incarceration chosen due to lack of risk and substantial personal costs.	Court’s deterrence rationale supported by totality of circumstances.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes deferential review of sentences and factors for reasonableness)
United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008) (deference to district court and need for plausible explanation of variance)
United States v. Tejeda, 481 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2007) (allowing consideration of idiosyncratic family circumstances under post-Booker framework)
United States v. Livesay, 587 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (vacatur of probationary sentence in large fraud case due to substantive unreasonableness)
United States v. Cutler, 520 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2008) (court relied on several arguments including family circumstances and loss overstating culpability)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc rejection of prior heightened review of sentences in health-care fraud context)
United States v. Mueffelman, 470 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (emphasizes deterrence and white-collar crime seriousness)
United States v. Thurston, 544 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008) (highly deferential review of sentences despite disagreement with guidelines)