USA v. Boudreaux, No. 05-30635 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 14, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _____________________ No. 05-30635 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES G. BOUDREAUX, IV, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette USDC No. 6:04-CR-60015-ALL __________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The sentence of Charles Boudreaux is affirmed for the following reasons: 1. * The district judge gave full consideration to the evidence of the 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. offense, the presentence report, the sentencing guidelines, and the factors stated in Section 3553. Despite the strong argument of appellant s briefs, we do not read the judge to base the sentence on the defendant s privileged circumstances. Boudreaux assisted and counseled undercover agents posing as investors on how to launder money which he believed to be the proceeds of illegal activity. That is a very serious course of conduct. The judge decided, with good reason, that with Boudreaux s personal background and circumstances the explanation for the offense was not need or lack of understanding of propriety but pure unrestrained greed. We see no error or unreasonableness in the judge s decision. 2. The Government did not violate the plea agreement when it presented to the court accurate information bearing on defendant s conduct. 3. Any failure to give the defendant advance notice of the ground being contemplated for the sentence, pursuant to Rule 32(h), was not plain error. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.