Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

Where the defendant conspired to burn her house down,, and filed a frivolous action against her insurance company, an above-guideline sentence of 60 months was appropriate.

“She also argues that the district court did not explain or justify its above-guideline sentence. But the court adequately considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Hodge, 729 F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir. 2013), and offered compelling justifications for the sentence, see United States v. Bradley, 675 F.3d 1021, 1025 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Johnson, 612 F.3d 889, 896 (7th Cir. 2010). The district judge acknowledged that Hargis has no criminal history and is unlikely to commit future crimes, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). He also considered several letters from Hargis’s family and friends attesting to her good character. But the judge identified several aggravating circumstances. The applicable guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 2K1.3(a)(5), the judge observed, deals with explosive materials and does not appear to be designed to account for arson-for-profit cases like Hargis’s. The judge also remarked that Hargis’s crime was ‘incredible’ because she had schemed and lied to the court, her insurance company, and her own family. See id. § 3553(a)(1). As further evidence of the seriousness of Hargis’s offense, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(A), the judge noted that: She burned down the house that she shared with her two children and contained many of their personal belongings; the fire posed a substantial risk of harm to a neighbor who entered the house in fear that Hargis’s children were inside, as well as the firefighters who responded; and finally, Hargis inflated the amount of loss from the fire, committed perjury, and filed a frivolous lawsuit against her insurance company. Because the district judge discussed factors ‘sufficiently particularized’ to Hargis’s individual circumstances and adequately justified the sentence, we find no error. See United States v. Stinefast, 724 F.3d 925, 932–33 (7th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).”

Affirmed.

12-2153 U.S. v. Hargis

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Rovner, J.