Court vacates sentence for Rand Paul's neighbor, says it was too lenient

[Krugminator2]

A federal appeals court on Monday vacated a 30-day prison sentence for a neighbor of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who assaulted him in 2017, ruling it was overly lenient and ordering a resentencing.In a 16-page opinion, Judge Jane B. Stranch of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., writes that the lower court where Rene Boucher pleaded guilty to assaulting a member of Congress had “no compelling justification” for sentencing him far below federal guidelines.
“Federal defendants with a criminal history category of I [the lowest possible level] who were convicted of assault received an average sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment and a median sentence of 21 months,” the ruling states, citing data. “We therefore VACATE Boucher’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...nce-for-paul-neighbor-says-it-was-too-lenient

Two years seems right.

 

[specsaregood]

good

 

[Origanalist]

I wonder what his sentence would have been if it was Dick Durbin or Joe Biden?

 

[Valli6]

Read the opinion here:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0232p-06.pdf

Excerpts from the conclusion:

In a mine-run case like this one, we apply “closer review” to any variance from the Guidelines... And our review here reveals no compelling justification for Boucher’s well-below-Guidelines sentence... Boucher may or may not be entitled to a downward variance after the district court reweighs the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and it is the district court’s right to make that decision in the first instance.... (“This Court takes no position on what an appropriate sentence in this case might be and notes that on remand the district court still retains ample discretion to grant a variance. . . . The narrow reason for remand here is that the extreme nature of the deviation, without a correspondingly compelling justification, resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence.”). We therefore VACATE Boucher’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...nce-for-paul-neighbor-says-it-was-too-lenient

Two years seems right.

Two years is not enough but it's better than 30 days.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And where is the accountability of the people involved in the original extremely favorable and lenient punishment?

 

[Origanalist]

And where is the accountability of the people involved in the original extremely favorable and lenient punishment?

Shirley you jest.

 

[Valli6]

The other judge gave him a light sentence due to his "privileged position", but failed to take into account the seriousness of Rand Paul's injuries or “the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.”

(Daily Caller)

Boucher is “a 60 year old highly educated medical doctor, Army veteran, father, church member, and good standing community member with no criminal history,” the court stated in its “Statement of Reasons” submitted after his sentencing.

But those factors are “almost all disfavored” as grounds for reduced sentencing, the 6th Circuit stated Monday.

“These factors are disfavored for a good reason,” the 6th Circuit wrote. “To prioritize a defendant’s education, professional success, and standing in the community would give an additional leg up to defendants who are already in a privileged position.”

“These simple markers of privilege did not warrant an extreme variance in Boucher’s case,” the 6th Circuit wrote.
(more) https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/09/6th-circuit-resentencing-rand-paul-attacker

(Judge's opinion)

...The Government cites, for example, several cases involving “assault resulting in serious bodily injury within U.S. territorial jurisdiction,” 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6), and others involving “assaulting, resisting, or impeding” federal officers, 18 U.S.C. § 111. Some of these defendants had lengthy criminal records, making their sentences irrelevant... (edit)...But others involved defendants who, like Boucher, had a criminal history category of I. Three occurred on Native American reservations and resulted in sentences of 48 months, 41 months, and 43 months, respectively... (edit)...In the remaining two, one defendant received a 24-month sentence for pushing a door into the arm of a government doctor,... and the other received a 21-month sentence for giving a customs officer a bloody nose and ear during a “brief melee” on a cruise ship........
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0232p-06.pdf

 

[jkr]

And where is the accountability of the people involved in the original extremely favorable and lenient punishment?

milking that PENSION (4 life)

you and I AND RAND will have to work till we drop to support our oppressors!

neat huh?


NOW GET BACK TO WORK SLAVE ("CITIZEN")! MAKE THIER MONEY (TIME)!!!:bigpoo:

 

[Anti Globalist]

Two years is better than 30 days but I would have preferred a sentence between 5-10 years.

 

[Valli6]

Two years is better than 30 days but I would have preferred a sentence between 5-10 years.

That could still happen. The new sentence hasn't been determined yet.

We therefore VACATE Boucher’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0232p-06.pdf

 

[Stratovarious]

Two years is better than 30 days but I would have preferred a sentence between 5-10 years.

I would go with this /\ /\ , 5 to 10, it was a blind side , savage beating from what I understood,
for what , this JA can go to hell in my book.

 

[timosman]

And where is the accountability of the people involved in the original extremely favorable and lenient punishment?

This vindictive over analysis of the past misdeeds serves no purpose. Can we concentrate on the bright future awaiting us all instead?

 

[RonZeplin]

When Trump's ratings fall a few points more, he may give Boofer a pardon?

Next week.

 

[pao]

Two years is better than 30 days but I would have preferred a sentence between 5-10 years.

He has already proven himself capable of being a very violent person. He could very easily screw up while in prison and end up with 5-10 or more years in the end.

 

[Schifference]

He has already proven himself capable of being a very violent person. He could very easily screw up while in prison and end up with 5-10 or more years in the end.

There is a difference between stupidity and opportunistic violence. Attacking a person while they are mowing their grass with headphones on, not expecting anything, is far different than exhibiting violence against violent people. My guess is he will check his violence at the gate prior to entering incarceration.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Appellate Court vacates the sentence for Rand Paul’s attacker demanding it be redone, says the sentence is far too lenient and far below the normal sentencing guidelines, and now the lawyer for the attacker is asking the Supreme Court to Weigh in. Find someone you don’t like, and beat them to within an inch of their life, collapse a lung and break ribs, and see if you get 30 days. This is why they need to unseal the indictments all on the same day, and clear all of these people from the system at once, before any legal action can go forward. But to do that they need to investigate every last one and get a sealed indictment on every last one. It takes time.

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/news-briefs-11-13-2019/

 

[eleganz]

Amazing, Rand is really going for the gonads here, I thought he was just gonna be his old self and let it go.

We all thought justice would not be served. Maybe it will in the end.

Hope Rand goes to sleep with a smirk on his face tonight, he's been through enough, what with a part of his lung now removed.

 

[Stratovarious]

He has already proven himself capable of being a very violent person. He could very easily screw up while in prison and end up with 5-10 or more years in the end.

I would much prefer to see that additional 5 to 10 added after he is sentenced to 10 years in prison , less than that is the kind
of non justice we see applied to the likes of the Clintons.

 

[Schifference]

I agree entirely that the attacker did not get an accurate sentence. However, is it appropriate that a person can be re-sentenced after they were sentenced?