Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03131/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas S. Boothe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., now deceased, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3131

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas.

Thomas S. Boothe, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 12, 2007

Filed: June 27, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Thomas Boothe appeals the forty-one month sentence imposed by the district

court,1

 following his conviction for wire fraud. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Boothe's wire fraud conviction stems from a scheme to steal and sell airplane

parts and electronic equipment from his employer, Raytheon. When Boothe was

Appellate Case: 06-3131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2007 Entry ID: 3323346
2

Although the record is not entirely clear due to the guilty plea, it appears to us

that most, if not all, of the parts that Boothe stole were either obsolete, or intended for

disposal. Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 9 (PSI). In light of this, we question

whether the value of these parts should have been placed at the amount Raytheon

originally paid for them. Tr. of Waiver of Indictment/Change of Plea Hr'g at 13,

United States v. Boothe, No. 4:05CR00334(1) (Dec. 15, 2005) ("Raytheon had spent

$1,198,063.25 on the equipment."). It seems doubtful that original purchase price

equates to the fair market value, or even replacement value, of parts that were

abandoned, or otherwise no longer in use. See United States Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(C)(i). 

The plea agreement and change of plea transcript both indicate that the amount

of loss was under dispute and would be argued to the court at sentencing. Tr. of Plea

Hr'g at 11; Plea Agreement at 4. However, Booth did not object to the PSI's

calculation setting loss at more than $1,000,000, and we see no dispute of this issue

at sentencing. In fact, defense counsel stated that it was "undisputed that . . . you've

got a million-one intended loss." Tr. of Sentencing at 15.

-2-

given a promotion, he was directed by senior management to dispose of certain parts.

In the midst of this process, Boothe noticed numerous items that were marketable, and

took those items from Raytheon's premises for sale. He later found additional

obsolete items in Raytheon inventory rooms and he also removed those items from

Raytheon in order to sell them as his own. Over time he removed and resold airplane

parts that, in sum, had originally been worth over one million dollars.2

 Boothe set up

a separate company and used the internet to resell the parts. When Raytheon

discovered that parts had been stolen and resold by Boothe, he was terminated. When

confronted by authorities about the scheme, Boothe admitted wrongdoing and pleaded

guilty to wire fraud.

At sentencing, Boothe received a two-level enhancement for abusing a position

of trust, and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Largely due to the sixteen

level enhancement for an intended loss of over one million dollars, his resulting range

was forty-one to fifty-one months. Boothe's counsel advocated for an extraordinary

Appellate Case: 06-3131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2007 Entry ID: 3323346
-3-

variance–probation instead of prison time, citing Boothe's young children and his

considerable religious and civic work. The district court declined defense counsel's

invitation, citing United States v. Ture, 450 F.3d 352, 357 (8th Cir. 2006) (reversing

the district court's sentence of probation when the Guidelines called for at least twelve

months of incarceration). The district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

gave Boothe a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines' range, and imposed restitution

in the amount of $1,193,931.27. On appeal Boothe challenges the forty-one month

sentence as unreasonable, arguing that the district court mistakenly believed it could

not vary below the Guidelines.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court's ultimate sentence for reasonableness, United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005), 

including the court's decision not to vary from the Guidelines based on 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a), United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir. 2006). We afford

the district court's decision to sentence a defendant within the Guidelines a

presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th

Cir. 2005); Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, 2007 WL 1772146, at *5-7 (U.S. June

21, 2007).

After reviewing the record, we find that the district court reasonably sentenced

Boothe, based on our precedent. In making this determination, the district court

correctly dispatched its duties under Haack. The district court had good reasons for

rejecting Boothe's request for such an extraordinary variance. In fashioning the

ultimate sentence, the district court took into account Boothe's history and

characteristics, the seriousness of the crime, the need for deterrence, and the need to

treat like-crimes similarly.

Appellate Case: 06-3131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2007 Entry ID: 3323346
-4-

There is no merit to Boothe's argument that the district court was confused

about Boothe's religiousness. Although Boothe argues that the district court thought

Boothe had made a "jailhouse conversion," it is clear that the district court knew

Boothe's personal history, and in fact the court questioned why Boothe had not

followed that personal religious conviction when he made the decision to steal from

his employer. While the court did make a comment about joining a church after

breaking the law, it seems clear from the context of the statement that the court was

extrapolating about the effect of Boothe's case on future cases if a jail sentence was

not imposed. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because the district court's forty-one month sentence is reasonable, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3131 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/27/2007 Entry ID: 3323346