USA v. Keith Broussard, No. 11-30004 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-30004 Document: 00511609989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-30004 Summary Calendar September 22, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KEITH J. BROUSSARD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:10-CR-159-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Keith J. Broussard was charged with mailing a threatening communication to an employee of the Social Security Administration. Broussard threatened to physically injure and forcibly rape the recipient of the communication. Broussard sought a downward departure to a sentence of probation because he suffers from epileptic seizures and was frustrated because he was not granted disability benefits. At sentencing, the district court noted and rejected the arguments for a downward departure. The district court * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-30004 Document: 00511609989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2011 No. 11-30004 considered the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. Section § 3553(a) and the Sentencing Guidelines. After contemplating these factors, the district court choose a non-guidelines sentence, above the recommended range, and sentenced Broussard to serve five years in prison. On appeal, Broussard does not challenge any procedural aspect of his sentence, but he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable considering the § 3553(a) factors and his physical problems. We review sentencing decisions for reasonableness and use the abuse of discretion standard when determining whether a given sentence is in fact reasonable. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable if 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. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court made no procedural errors and stated permissible reasons for its choice of sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 710. Broussard has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in going above the recommended range and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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.
