US v. Rayner, No. 12-1354 (1st Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 12-1354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. GEORGE F. RAYNER, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge] Before Howard, Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges. Harold J. Hainke and Hainke & Tash on brief for appellant. Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. January 18, 2013 Per Curiam. This is a single-issue sentencing appeal. It follows a jury verdict finding defendant-appellant George F. Rayner guilty of bankruptcy fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 152(1), and the district court's imposition of an incarcerative sentence of one year and one day. The defendant's challenge to the sentence asserts that the district court did not appropriately consider and weigh the sentencing factors limned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, as a result, fashioned a sentence that was greater than necessary to provide just punishment. record and We have carefully reviewed the district court the parties' briefs, and we find the defendant's argument to be meritless. We need not tarry. The guideline sentencing range in this case is not contested; that range spans 21-27 months. The district court the effected a downward variance in favor of defendant and imposed a sentence of one year and one day slightly more than one-half of the low point of the guideline sentencing range. In doing so, the court explicitly considered and weighed the totality of the circumstances, including the factors prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As best we can tell, the defendant's real complaint is not that the district court ignored the appropriate factors but, rather, that it weighed defendant had hoped. those factors differently than the Because the resulting sentence is neither -2- procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable, it commands our approbation. See United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 592-93 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194, 204-05 (1st Cir. 2006). We need go no further. court is summarily affirmed. The judgment of the district See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). Affirmed. -3-

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.