Mark A. McIntyre, after robbing six banks in four states within a month with his girlfriend, pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court, referencing the presentence investigation report and the parties' objections, initially calculated a guidelines imprisonment range of 37 to 46 months. However, the government sought an above-guidelines sentence, resulting in McIntyre receiving a 144-month sentence—almost 100 months above the guidelines range.
McIntyre was indicted alongside his girlfriend, Brook Beaulieu, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 41 months, cooperating with the government against him. The presentence report assigned McIntyre an offense level of 22 and criminal history category II, primarily due to a 1989 conviction for breaking into a rectory and tying up a priest. Notably, he received no points for earlier crimes, including an armed burglary targeting an elderly victim. Following Beaulieu's admission of their involvement in additional bank robberies, the report also highlighted McIntyre's threats against her public defender, which he contested, seeking a reduction for acceptance of responsibility prior to his guilty plea.
The government objected to the report, advocating for an upward departure due to the seriousness of McIntyre's criminal history and potential recidivism, and argued that he should not receive acceptance points due to his threats. During sentencing, testimony was presented regarding McIntyre's threats against Beaulieu’s attorney, although the court ultimately denied the government's request for an obstructing justice enhancement, deeming the threats ambiguous, and granted McIntyre a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, finding it reasonable.
A total offense level of 20 with a criminal history category of II resulted in a guidelines imprisonment range of 37 to 46 months for McIntyre. The government requested an above-guidelines sentence, arguing that McIntyre’s criminal history was underrepresented and that he should be classified as a career offender due to a lengthy criminal past, which was not fully captured because of prior Massachusetts law. McIntyre countered with a request for a within-guidelines sentence, citing a similarly sentenced individual and his years as a productive citizen without crime between 1994 and 2006. After considering both arguments, the district court imposed a 144-month sentence and three years of supervised release, agreeing with the government about the underrepresentation of McIntyre’s criminal history and the necessity to protect the public, particularly in light of threats he made against a public defender.
On appeal, McIntyre claimed the sentence was unreasonable due to a failure to adhere to guidelines for upward departures per U.S.S.G. 4A1.3. However, following the precedent set in United States v. Booker, the court is not strictly bound to these guidelines when determining an above-guidelines sentence, provided it gives adequate reasoning aligned with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The district court correctly calculated the guidelines range and referenced 3553(a) in its rationale for the 144-month sentence. It highlighted McIntyre's violent criminal history, the psychological impact of his crimes, threats against legal representatives, and the need for public protection and deterrence. The sentence was deemed reasonable and well-explained, leading to the affirmation of McIntyre’s sentence.
