Opinion ID: 3155932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Above-Guidelines Sentence

Text: In Churchwell’s final argument, he alleges that his 42-month sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He contends first, that the upward variance was not justified because it was already included in the calculation of the Guidelines sentencing range; second, that any interference with government function was inherent in his offense and did not justify an upward departure; and third, that a sentence of more than twice the top of the Guideline range was unreasonable where the district court failed to adequately explain why it was necessary to impose such a sentence. We disagree.
We review sentences for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, including “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, we will next consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.; United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Churchwell did not object to the district court’s alleged failure to provide reasons for the imposed sentence. We therefore review this issue for plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361. In light of the record, the above-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. See United States v. Campos– Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
As an initial matter, we note that the district court committed no procedural error. “The district court must adequately explain the sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While within-Guidelines sentences require little 19 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 explanation, the district court must give a more detailed explanation for a nonGuidelines sentence. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). “The farther a sentence varies from the applicable Guideline sentence, the more compelling the justification based on factors in section 3553(a) must be.” Smith, 440 F.3d at 707 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court calculated the applicable Guidelines range, allowed both parties to present arguments as to what they believed the appropriate sentence should be, and considered all of the section 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In doing so, the district court adequately explained its reasoning for choosing the sentence. The court stated that Churchwell’s conduct went beyond merely approving the deficient passport applications: it included ignoring and threatening subordinate employees who identified potential fraud and sexually harassing passport couriers. The court also concluded that Churchwell, in his managerial position at the HPA, created a substantial risk of harm to governmental functions and to the integrity of the passport system by ignoring the proper procedures for issuing passports. The district court deemed the sentence appropriate in light of Churchwell’s overt and egregious misconduct and abuse of trust in his administrative position at the HPA. Similarly, while Churchwell argues that undermining the integrity of the passport system was inherent in the offense itself and thus did not warrant a departure under section 5K2.7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 15 the district court specified that the circumstances of the offense and Churchwell’s characteristics warranted a variance under section 3553(a) or, 15Churchwell contends that the reasons given by the district court are not adequately compelling to warrant the upward departure. 20 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 21 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 alternatively, a departure under section 5K2.7. The district court explained that the imposed sentence was chiefly a variance under the section 3553(a) factors. As the district court pointed out, Churchwell’s misconduct called into question the overall integrity of the passport system and the likelihood that applicants would receive fair and impartial treatment. Churchwell has not established a clear or obvious procedural error. Because the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we must now consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.
Churchwell also contends that his 42-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is much higher than the advisory Guidelines range. 16 When conducting a review of substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, we may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness. Id. We may consider the extent of the deviation but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the section 3553(a) factors, as a whole, justify the extent of the variance. Id. An above-Guidelines sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors set forth in section 3553(a) only where 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.” 16 Churchwell maintains that his actions should not be considered an abuse of trust because his conduct with the female couriers, while not to be encouraged, did not come to light until the investigation began, was mainly consensual and did not warrant such a high sentence. Churchwell also asserts that the “insignificant” disruption to the passport system resulting from his conduct was inherent in the offense and did not warrant a variance. He also indicates that his sentence was much higher than those received by his codefendants, Russell and Brown. 21 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. “The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. First, the record demonstrates that the district court made an individualized assessment of all relevant factors to determine whether a sentence within the Guidelines range was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of section 3553(a). The court pointed to Churchwell’s egregious conduct in overruling subordinates who found evidence of fraud and in demanding sexual favors from couriers. The court also stressed the value of a United States passport and the harm caused by Churchwell’s failure to abide by the policies despite his position of authority at the HPA. Second, Churchwell’s arguments, see supra Part VI.A–C, do not show that the district court gave weight to improper factors. The court noted that it based its sentence on (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); and (2) the seriousness of the offense in order to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A); Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Churchwell maintains that the variance was not justified on the basis of an abuse of trust because that factor was taken into account by the Guidelines and because his sexual relations with the couriers was either consensual or unreported until the investigation began. However, the district court specifically delineated between the abuse of trust arising from Churchwell’s criminal conduct, which justified the two-level sentencing enhancement, and his overall threatening and intimidating demeanor in carrying out his duties at the HPA, which warranted the variance. Churchwell’s argument that two of the couriers engaged in consensual sexual conduct is also disingenuous: one of the couriers stated that Churchwell made numerous sexual advances toward her and required her to engage in sexual 22 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 contact with him when she asked for a favor on a client’s passport. Although the courier did not report him, her interview indicated that she was afraid of retaliation from Churchwell, who could ensure that she was fired, and that she feared for her safety. Churchwell admits that the courier rejected his advances. Churchwell has not shown that the district court’s stated reliance on his abuse of trust as a basis for a variance was improper. Churchwell also asserts that the court’s sentence is improper because the disruption to passport services was “insignificant.” This is not supported by the record. A letter from the United States Department of State reflected that as a result of Churchwell’s actions, an audit of passport applications processed at the HPA required 11 employees to review over 1,400 applications for evidence of malfeasance, which resulted in substantial cost to the passport agency. The Government was required to institute additional procedures and training sessions to attempt to resolve future misconduct. An Assistant Secretary at the State Department also noted that Churchwell had involved numerous subordinate employees in his fraudulent conduct, which resulted in emotional distress and fears of reprisals. The aforementioned repercussions of Churchwell’s conduct were not at all insignificant and were properly considered by the district court. Churchwell implies that his sentence should have been closer to those received by his codefendants. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 476 (5th Cir. 2006); Smith, 440 F.3d at 709. However, he has not shown that his codefendants, who were not employees of the HPA and who were not directly responsible for ensuring the issuance of the improper passports, were similarly situated to him. Finally, Churchwell has not shown that there was a clear error in judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. The district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range, considered testimony and 23 Case: 14-20351 Document: 00513277044 Page: 24 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 No. 14-20351 supplemental materials provided by each party, and carefully articulated permissible reasons for its variance. We therefore accord the sentencing judge’s decision great deference in this determination, and affirm the sentence.