United States v. Underwood, 639 F.3d 1111

Underwood pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, based on a scheme at his title and escrow company to close refinancings and misappropriate funds.
The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months after offense level 31 and criminal history I.
Underwood requested a downward departure under § 5H1.6 or a § 3553(a) variance due to his son Levi’s muscular dystrophy and caregiving needs.
A three-day evidentiary hearing was held; Levi’s doctor testified Levi could be cared for by his mother with occasional help, contrary to other testimony.
The district court rejected the departure/variance request and imposed the low end of the Guidelines range, 108 months.
On appeal, Underwood challenges the district court’s denial of the departure, its consideration of family circumstances, and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying § 5H1.6 downward departure	Underwood argues the court erred by misreading authority to depart.	Underwood contends the court believed it lacked authority to grant the departure.	No error; no unconstitutional motive or authority misreading established; affirmed denial.
Whether the district court failed to consider family circumstances under § 3553(a)	Underwood asserts the court failed to weigh Levi’s care needs as a factor.	Court considered Levi’s condition and Underwood’s role as caretaker among other § 3553(a) factors.	Procedural consideration satisfied; court weighed relevant factors in light of the record.
Whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable given the caretaker role	Sentence should have varied downward to reflect caregiving duties.	Court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence.	No abuse of discretion; within Guidelines with presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing; review for procedural/substantive error)
United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010) (procedural error when district court fails to consider relevant factors)
United States v. Jones, 563 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2009) (context on considering family circumstances under § 3553(a))
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; standard for substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Dodds, 532 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing downward departures based on authority/motive)