IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL JAMES BROUSSARD

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:10-CR-217-1

Before JONES, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel James Broussard pled guilty to two counts of using a facility in 

interstate commerce to attempt to coerce a minor to engage in criminal sexual 

acts.1 He was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment on each count, to run 

concurrently, and to concurrent 20-year terms of supervised release. He 

* 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. R. 47.5.4.

1 In his interview with the police Broussard admitted that he had engaged in sexually 

explicit Webcam activities with persons under the age of 18, and that he believed he had 

engaged in about one hundred such experiences with girls as young as 12.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 15, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30277 Document: 00512501981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2014
No. 13-30277

challenges the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we 

AFFIRM. 

Broussard was initially convicted and sentenced to 40 years 

imprisonment. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the 40-

year sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. This 

court affirmed Broussard’s conviction, but vacated his sentence on the ground 

that the district court plainly erred in relying on Broussard’s rehabilitative 

needs in lengthening his sentence. United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 

540-45 (5th Cir. 2012); see Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011).

The proper guideline range of imprisonment is 87 to 100 months. 

Because there is a statutory minimum sentence of 10 years, the guideline 

sentence becomes 10 years imprisonment. The statutory maximum sentence 

is life. 

On remand, the district court reviewed all of the materials submitted 

and considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. It also heard testimony 

from two mental health experts who each testified that Broussard was 

amenable to treatment and posed a low risk of recidivism. After hearing the 

testimony, the district court noted that it was concerned with the potential that 

the experts were wrong. The district court again imposed an upward variance 

from the guideline sentence of 10 years, sentencing Broussard to 240 months 

of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and to concurrent 20-year 

terms of supervised release. The 20-year sentence is 20 years shorter than the 

sentence previously vacated.

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Reasonableness review requires this court to evaluate whether the upward 

variance sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, 

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006), but this court “may 

2

 Case: 13-30277 Document: 00512501981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2014
No. 13-30277

not reverse the district court’s ruling just because it would have determined 

than an alternative sentence was appropriate.” United States v. Brantley, 537 

F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).

Broussard argues that the district court failed to properly weigh the 

sentencing factors. His argument is without merit. The district court correctly

calculated the guideline range and considered both Broussard’s age and the 

testimony from the mental health professionals. The district court was 

concerned that one of the mental health professionals had only spent three 

hours with Broussard and the other had never examined him. The district 

court also considered sexually explicit writings that Broussard had composed

as a teenager. These “fantasies” were written in the first person and described 

sexual encounters with minors and incestuous relationships. Furthermore, 

the district court explicitly avoided lengthening the sentence for the purposes 

of rehabilitative needs, thereby correcting the error that caused this court to 

vacate the previous sentence. Broussard, 669 F.3d at 540-45. Ultimately, the 

district court felt that any mitigating factors were outweighed by the 

seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the public. 

While the upward variance in this case is substantial, we have affirmed 

similar variances in other cases. See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 348-50 (upholding 

180-month upward variance from guidelines maximum of 51 months based on 

the defendant’s characteristics and extensive criminal history, the offenses of 

conviction, and the need to deter further criminal conduct and protect the 

public); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2006) 

(affirming 120-month upward variance from guidelines maximum of 57 

months based on the seriousness of the offense and the need to deter further 

criminal conduct and protect the public). The district court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting the upward variance. The sentence is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-30277 Document: 00512501981 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/15/2014