USA v. Keith Broussard
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-30004 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 10/13/2011 for Appellant Keith J. Broussard [11-30004]
Date Filed: 09/22/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
September 22, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
KEITH J. BROUSSARD,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:10-CR-159-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Keith J. Broussard
with mailing a threatening
communication to an employee of the Social Security Administration. Broussard
threatened to physically injure and forcibly rape the recipient of the
communication. Broussard sought a downward departure to a sentence of
probation because he suffers from epileptic seizures and was frustrated because
he was not granted disability benefits. At sentencing, the district court noted
and rejected the arguments for a downward departure. The district court
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 09/22/2011
considered the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. Section § 3553(a) and the
Sentencing Guidelines. After contemplating these factors, the district court
choose a non-guidelines sentence, above the recommended range, and sentenced
Broussard to serve five years in prison.
On appeal, Broussard does not challenge any procedural aspect of his
sentence, but he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
considering the § 3553(a) factors and his physical problems.
sentencing decisions for reasonableness and use the abuse of discretion standard
when determining whether a given sentence is in fact reasonable. United States
v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A non-guidelines
sentence is unreasonable if “it (1) does not account for a factor that should have
received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the
sentencing factors.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
The district court made no procedural errors and stated permissible
reasons for its choice of sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 710. Broussard has
failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in going above the
recommended range and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?