Affirmation of Upward Variance Based on Stipulated Factual Proffer for Intentional Sexual Contact with a Sleeping, Intoxicated Victim

Introduction

United States v. Hoobesh Kumar Dookhy is a November 2024 Eleventh Circuit decision affirming a 24-month sentence (the statutory maximum) imposed for non-consensual sexual contact under federal maritime jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 2244(b)). The defendant, a cruise‐ship bartender, pled guilty to knowingly making sexual contact with a sleeping, intoxicated passenger. Although the Sentencing Guidelines range was 6–12 months, the district court granted the government’s motion for an upward variance based on the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence. On appeal, Dookhy argued procedural error (reliance on unproven allegations) and substantive unreasonableness. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The factual proffer: Dookhy entered the victim’s stateroom with her key, remained for over an hour, took a photograph of the sleeping, intoxicated victim, and intentionally touched her breasts without permission.
Guideline calculations: The parties agreed to a total offense level of 10 (base level 12 for sexual contact, minus 2 for acceptance), yielding a 6–12-month guideline range.
Upward variance request: The government, and the victim at the hearing, urged a 24-month sentence to reflect the gravity of the conduct and to deter similar misconduct by cruise-ship employees.
District court reasoning: Limiting itself to the stipulated factual proffer, the court found the conduct “truly vile,” concluded a significant variance was warranted for general and specific deterrence, and imposed the 24-month statutory maximum.
Eleventh Circuit holding: No procedural error—district court did not rely on unproven allegations but only the plea proffer—and no substantive unreasonableness under the totality of the circumstances and § 3553(a) factors.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Framework for appellate review of sentences, requiring consideration of procedural and substantive reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
United States v. Henry, 1 F.4th 1315 (11th Cir. 2021) – Affirms deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentences inside or outside the Guidelines.
United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) – Plain‐error standard when sentencing objections are not preserved.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2A3.1(a)(2) and 2A3.4(c)(1) – Base offense levels and cross-reference for criminal sexual abuse.
18 U.S.C. § 2244(b) – Criminalizes intentional sexual contact without permission in maritime jurisdiction.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit undertook the two‐step Gall analysis. First, the court found no procedural error: the district court explicitly confined its sentencing rationale to the facts of the stipulated plea proffer, and it did not rely on unproven allegations despite hearing the victim’s unsworn statements. To the contrary, the court sustained the defense’s objection and reduced the Guidelines range accordingly.

Second, on substantive review, the appellate court recognized the district court’s broad discretion to weigh the § 3553(a) factors—including the nature and seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence—more heavily than the advisory Guidelines. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that a sentence at the statutory cap is reasonable where the conduct (entry into a guest’s cabin, photographing a sleeping, intoxicated person, and non-consensual groping) is egregious and warrants a strong general deterrent effect.

Impact

Reinforces that a district court may impose an upward variance to the statutory maximum when plea‐agreement facts describe particularly reprehensible conduct.
Clarifies that stipulated factual proffers, once accepted by the court, carry the same weight at sentencing as proven facts, barring reliance on extra-record or unadmitted allegations.
Affirms deference to district courts’ fact‐specific judgments on deterrence and respect for the law under § 3553(a).
Signals to maritime employers and hospitality workers the serious consequences of abusing positions of trust and authority.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Upward Variance: A sentence above the advisory Guidelines range based on factors like deterrence and public safety, but not exceeding the statutory maximum.
Stipulated Factual Proffer: Written facts the defendant and government agree to for the plea; the court may rely on these facts at sentencing without additional proof.
§ 3553(a) Factors: Statutory list of considerations—nature of offense, history of defendant, public protection, deterrence, and more—that guide the court’s sentencing decision.
Deferential Review: Appellate courts give substantial leeway to trial courts’ sentencing decisions, overturning only clear abuses of discretion.

Conclusion

United States v. Dookhy underscores the principle that even in the plea‐agreement context, a district court may impose a significant upward variance based on undisputed, stipulated facts describing egregious criminal conduct. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirms the court’s broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to ensure sentences meaningfully reflect the seriousness of non-consensual sexual abuse, protect the public, and deter future misconduct. This ruling clarifies the proper use of plea‐agreement proffers at sentencing and reinforces the sentencing court’s authority to match punishment to the gravity of the offense.