United States v. VandeBrake
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8584
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- VandeBrake pleaded guilty to three antitrust offenses (two bid rigging, one price fixing) under a non-binding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea after the district court declined a binding plea; he later challenged the court’s handling of the binding plea and the sentence.
- DOJ investigation confirmed conspiracies between Alliance and competitors; volume of commerce affected totaled about $5.66 million; PSR calculated offense level and a guideline range of 21–27 months under U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1.
- District court ultimately varied upward to 48 months and imposed a $829,715.85 fine, citing policy disagreement with the antitrust guidelines and VandeBrake’s lack of remorse, along with consideration of history and characteristics.
- District court criticized the 2R1.1 methodology and applied 2B1.1 (fraud guideline) concepts to determine loss, then justified the variance and fine as punitive and reflective of VandeBrake’s wealth.
- On appeal, the government argued the binding plea issue was waived by the unconditional guilty plea; the court held the binding-plea issue was waived and affirmed the sentence and fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by not accepting the binding plea agreement | VandeBrake argues the court should have accepted the binding plea | N/A | Waived; court affirmed the sentence and rejected the binding-plea challenge |
| Whether the 48‑month sentence and $829,715.85 fine are substantively reasonable | VandeBrake contends the sentence and fine are excessive | Government argues variance was permissible given policy disagreements and case-specific factors | No reversible error; sentence and fine held substantively reasonable under deferential review |
| Whether the district court properly applied guidelines and standards in varying from § 2R1.1 | VandeBrake contends reliance on § 2R1.1 was misapplied | Court validly used policy disagreement with § 2R1.1 and case-specific factors to justify variance | Court’s variance upheld; reasons adequate and tied to § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007) (closer review for policy-based variances to guidelines based on empirical strengths)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007) (three-step post-Booker sentencing framework; reasonableness review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 2007) (empirical data guiding guideline adjustments)
- Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir., 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review in post-Booker sentencing; closer review context)
- United States v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773 (8th Cir., 2010) (adequacy of factual basis for plea; Rule 11 considerations)