United States v. Vandebrake, No. 11-1390 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to two counts of price fixing and one count of bid rigging in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence, contending that the district court abused its discretion by not accepting the binding plea agreement. Defendant also contended that the sentence of 48 months, as well as the amount of the fine, was substantively unreasonable. The court found no basis for concluding the final sentence was substantively unreasonable. The district court considered appropriate factors in varying from the guidelines and adequately explained its sentence. Similarly, the district court considered appropriate factors in selecting the fine amount, and adequately explained its chosen amount. Therefore, the court found no basis for concluding the amount of the fine was substantively unreasonable.
Court Description: Criminal Case - sentence. District court varied upward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced defendant to 48 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release and fine of $829,715.85 after guilty plea to price fixing and bid rigging in violation of 15 U.S.C. sec.1. Claim that district court abused its discretion in not accepting a binding plea is foreclosed by guilty plea to a non-binding plea agreement. Sentence and fine were not substantively unreasonable, as district court gave cogent reasons of its policy disagreement with the guidelines and based the sentence on case-specific circumstances, including defendant's lack of remorse. Chief Judge Riley concurs. Judge Beam dissents.
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.