United States v. Ane Plate
839 F.3d 950
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ane Plate, a long-time financial advisor, pled guilty to embezzling $176,079.70 from elderly clients with diminished mental capacity by unauthorized transfers and check solicitations.
- PSI calculated guideline offense level 18, criminal history I, guideline range 27–33 months; Plate had no prior convictions and paid about $40,000 toward restitution.
- At sentencing the district court said it would have given probation if Plate had paid full restitution and offered to "immediately convert" a prison term to probation if restitution were paid later.
- The court imposed 27 months incarceration (low end of guidelines), two years supervised release, and restitution of $142,768.28 payable monthly.
- Plate appealed, arguing the sentence violated due process/equal protection by conditioning imprisonment on inability to pay restitution, and that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding the district judge abused discretion by giving dispositive weight to Plate’s inability to pay restitution and ordered resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plate's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing conditioned on inability to pay restitution violated constitutional protections | Conditioning imprisonment on inability to pay violates equal protection/due process (citing Williams, Tate, Bearden) | Court argued it would have "rewarded" payment but maintained a prison term was required for a Class B felony | Court found the record showed sentencing relied on inability to pay, which raises constitutional concerns, but resolved the case on other grounds |
| Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable | Sentence was unreasonable because judge relied on improper factor (inability to pay restitution) | Government conceded judge’s statements showed reliance on restitution but defended sentence on other §3553(a) factors | Vacated: district court abused discretion by giving dispositive weight to inability to pay restitution; sentence substantively unreasonable |
| Whether any procedural sentencing error required reversal | Plate raised procedural objections (no contemporaneous objection) | Government defended sentencing procedure; no timely objection made below | Court reviewed procedural claims for plain error and rejected them, deciding to rest disposition on substantive-unreasonableness grounds |
| Appropriate remedy/remand | Requested resentencing | Government did not oppose remand but argued no constitutional or substantive defect requiring a new judge | Court vacated sentence and ordered resentencing before a different district judge due to appearance the original judge could not set aside the improper factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (incarceration solely for inability to pay violates constitutional protections)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (same principle applied to fines)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (state may not revoke probation for failure to pay without assessing reasons and alternatives)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (federal courts generally may not modify a term of imprisonment after it is imposed)
- United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810 (9th Cir.; reiterating that Constitution forbids longer imprisonment based on inability to pay restitution)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (en banc) (abuse of discretion standard and when district court abuses discretion in sentencing)