Court Opinion

ID: 9865801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 21:00:45.854812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:14.241062
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12042    Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 09/25/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12042
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JOHN FRANCIS BOLIEAU,
       a.k.a. John Bolieau,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-14002-AMC-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12042     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023    Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12042

                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              John Francis Bolieau appeals his sentence of 60 months’ im-
       prisonment for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of
       18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). On appeal, he argues that the district court
       imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because, he argues,
       the court imposed an upward variance without properly consider-
       ing or weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or provid-
       ing a sufficient justification. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                                      I.
              Bolieau was charged via indictment with failure to register
       as a sex offender, in violation of § 2250(a). He pled guilty to that
       charge pursuant to a written plea agreement.
              Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-
       tencing investigation report (“PSI”), which reported the following.
       In December 2013, Bolieau was convicted in Massachusetts for
       three counts of aggravated rape and abuse of a child, four counts of
       indecent assault and battery of a child under the age of fourteen,
       and one count of indecent assault and battery on a person over the
       age of fourteen. These offenses related to Bolieau’s daughter re-
       porting that Bolieau had sexually abused her from 2005 to 2012. As
       a part of his total sentence, he received ten years of probation upon
       the completion of his imprisonment term, with a specific condition
       that he register as a sex offender with the Sex Offender Registry
USCA11 Case: 22-12042      Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 09/25/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       22-12042               Opinion of the Court                         3

       Board pursuant to the Sex Offender and Notification Act. In July
       2021, after Bolieau completed his term of imprisonment, he was
       required to wear a GPS ankle monitor upon his release to proba-
       tion. Bolieau was also informed that he had to notify the appropri-
       ate registering authority, in writing, before changing his residence
       and had to immediately contact and advise the appropriate author-
       ities of his presence if he relocated to another state. At the time of
       his release to probation, he was living in Massachusetts and regis-
       tered his address as required.
               In late October 2021, however, Bolieau cut off his ankle
       monitor, left Massachusetts, and flew to Florida, where he lived
       until his arrest on December 15, 2021. A store’s surveillance video
       from November 2021 showed an occasion where he was alone in a
       car with a child for about twelve minutes, although there was no
       evidence of any sexual abuse allegations as to this incident. At the
       time of his arrest, Bolieau admitted that: (1) he was a registered sex
       offender; (2) he had cut off his ankle monitor: (3) he had not re-
       ported to law enforcement that he was living in Florida; (4) he had
       not registered as a sex offender in Florida; and (5) he had periodi-
       cally thought about turning himself in to be arrested.
              The PSI calculated Bolieau’s base level offense as 16 pursu-
       ant to U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(a)(1). The offense level was decreased by
       three levels for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G.
       § 3E1.1(a)–(b). The PSI determined that he had three criminal his-
       tory points for his 2013 convictions of aggravated rape and abuse
       of a child, indecent assault and battery of a child under the age of
USCA11 Case: 22-12042     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023    Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12042

       fourteen, and indecent assault and battery on a person over the age
       of fourteen. Bolieau then received two additional criminal history
       points for committing the instant offense while under a criminal
       justice sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d). Because Bolieau
       had five criminal history points, the PSI stated that he a criminal
       history category of III. Pursuant to § 2250(a), the statutory maxi-
       mum term of imprisonment was 120 months. And the PSI calcu-
       lated the Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range as 18 to 24
       months.
              The PSI also noted the following. In 1993, as a teenager,
       Bolieau was reported for sexually assaulting three young girls on
       multiple occasions. He was subsequently found delinquent on
       charges of indecent assault and battery of a child under the age of
       fourteen and open and gross lewdness, and he received probation,
       which he later violated. In 2004, Bolieau received probation for
       disturbing the peace, which he later violated, and in 2005, he vio-
       lated probation in relation to an offense of driving under the influ-
       ence. Additionally, Bolieau’s father had physically and sexually
       abused him when he was a toddler, and he never received treat-
       ment for the abuse. He also struggled with substance abuse, at-
       tempted suicide, and was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, a
       sleep disorder, and bipolar disorder.
             Bolieau filed no objections to his guideline calculations. The
       government filed a sentencing memorandum and incorporated
       motion for an upward variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
       The government argued that Bolieau’s conduct was not a simple
USCA11 Case: 22-12042      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       22-12042               Opinion of the Court                          5

       technical violation of his registration requirements, as he had cut
       off his ankle monitor and fled to Florida, where he concealed his
       presence and had unsupervised contact with a child. It also argued
       that his juvenile criminal history should be considered in sentenc-
       ing because he was a repeat, hands-on sex-offender and the govern-
       ment had a vested interest in monitoring him to protect the public
       from him. It further argued that his criminal history points un-
       derrepresented the seriousness of his 2013 conviction for repeat-
       edly raping his daughter and that he lacked respect for the law and
       would likely recidivate.
              Bolieau opposed the government’s motion. He asserted
       that he suffered from a traumatic childhood and had never received
       treatment for the abuse he suffered. He contended that he ac-
       cepted full responsibility for his actions and had used poor judg-
       ment in having unsupervised contact with a minor, but noted that
       there was no evidence he had engaged in any inappropriate sexual
       behavior with that minor. He argued that he needed to be placed
       in a sex offender treatment program to be rehabilitated and reduce
       his recidivism risk and that a sentence within the guideline range
       would sufficiently reflect the seriousness of his instant offense, pro-
       mote the law, and provide just punishment.
              At the sentencing hearing, neither party objected to the PSI,
       and the district court adopted the PSI in full. The parties then made
       their arguments as to whether Bolieau should receive an upward
       variance.
USCA11 Case: 22-12042     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023    Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12042

               The district court then granted the government’s motion for
       an upward variance under § 3553(a), stating that it considered the
       case very carefully, including the full record and the parties’ argu-
       ments, and that it applied the § 3553(a) factors. The court found
       that a sentence within the guideline would undermine the § 3553(a)
       factors. The district court explained that the circumstances of Bo-
       lieau’s offense aggravated his offense, considering that, just a few
       months after being released to probation and being informed of his
       registration requirements, he decided to brazenly cut off his ankle
       monitor and abscond to Florida. The district court stated that his
       history and characteristics depicted an individual, who since his
       teenage years, had been engaged in extremely disturbing sexual be-
       havior with minors that ultimately escalated to the rape of his own
       daughter over a lengthy period. Based on this history, the district
       court found that there was a need to protect the public, promote
       respect for the law, and impose a sentence that reflected the seri-
       ousness of his brazen failure to register. It also noted the im-
       portance of deterring others from failing to register. The district
       court then stated that the foregoing reasons was its explanation of
       the sentence. The district court imposed a sentence of 60 months’
       imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release, stating that it
       found such a sentence to be reasonable and not greater than neces-
       sary. Bolieau then objected to the upward variance as an unrea-
       sonable sentence, and this appeal ensued.
                                      II.
             We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
       under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. United States v.
USCA11 Case: 22-12042      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-12042               Opinion of the Court                          7

       Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022). In reviewing the
       reasonableness of a sentence, we will not substitute our own judg-
       ment for that of the district court and will affirm a sentence so long
       as the court’s decision was “in the ballpark of permissible out-
       comes.” Id. at 1355 (quoting United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
       1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2015)). The defendant bears the burden of
       showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and
       the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
       1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
                                      III.
              Upward variances are imposed based on the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. Under § 3553(a), the district court
       must impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than nec-
       essary, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect
       for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford
       adequate deterrence, and to protect the public from further crimes
       of the defendant. In addition, the court must consider, among
       other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the his-
       tory and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to avoid un-
       warranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defend-
       ants. Id. A court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence
       “when it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that
       were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an im-
       proper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment
       in considering the proper factors. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355 (quoting
       United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)).
USCA11 Case: 22-12042      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023     Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12042

       A court commits a clear error of judgment when it weighs the
       § 3553(a) factors unreasonably. Id.
               Though the district court is required to consider all rele-
       vant § 3553(a) factors, the weight given to each factor is committed
       to the sound discretion of the court, and the court may attach great
       weight to one factor over the others. Id. Additionally, the court’s
       failure to discuss mitigating evidence does not indicate that the
       court erroneously ignored or failed to consider the evidence. Id. at
       1356. While the court must explain its conclusion that an unusu-
       ally harsh sentence is appropriate in a particular case with sufficient
       justification, “extraordinary” justification is not required.
       Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46–47 (2007). The court’s ac-
       knowledgment that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the
       parties’ arguments is sufficient. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356. Further-
       more, a sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum may
       indicate reasonableness. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
               Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
       discretion. The district court properly considered and weighed the
       following relevant § 3553(a) factors: the nature and circumstances
       of Bolieau’s offense; his history and characteristics; the need to pro-
       tect the public; the need to promote respect for the law; the need
       for deterrence; and the need for his sentence to reflect the serious-
       ness of his offense. See § 3553(a); Butler, 39 F.4th at 1354–56. The
       district court also provided sufficient justification for the upward
       variance because it explained that it considered the record, the par-
       ties’ arguments, and the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See Butler, 39
USCA11 Case: 22-12042       Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 09/25/2023    Page: 9 of 9

       22-12042                 Opinion of the Court                       9

       F.4th at 1356; Gall, 552 U.S. at 46-47. Further, Bolieau’s sentence
       of 60 months’ imprisonment is well below the statutory maximum
       of 120 months in § 2250(a). See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
                Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm Bolieau’s sen-
       tence.
                AFFIRMED.