United States v. Eugene Dokes
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19414
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dokes pleaded guilty to theft of U.S. property for receiving unauthorized Social Security disability benefits in Dec 2012–Jan 2013.
- SSA determined Dokes received $45,835.60 in overpayments from October 2010 to January 2013; PSR adopted that amount and recommended a six-level Guidelines increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D).
- District court set a deadline for written PSR objections and ordered objections be filed separately; Dokes timely filed an "Acceptance to Presentence Report" stating "all objections have been resolved."
- Dokes later filed a sentencing memorandum arguing loss should begin July 2011, and three days before sentencing moved for leave to file untimely objections to the PSR loss determination, claiming counsel mistakenly thought earlier filings preserved the issue.
- The district court denied leave for lack of good cause and practical prejudice to the Probation Office, adopted the PSR, imposed probation with six months home confinement, and ordered restitution of $45,835.60.
- On appeal, Dokes argued the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider his untimely objections; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dokes) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district abused discretion in denying leave to file untimely PSR objections | Dokes: Good cause existed because he had preserved the loss dispute in the plea agreement, at the change-of-plea hearing, and the PSR noted the disagreement; counsel’s mistake was reasonable | Court: Dokes’ written Acceptance stating "all objections have been resolved," the Scheduling Order requiring separate objections, and last-minute notice made relief unjustified and prejudicial | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; no good cause shown |
| Whether the Sentencing Memorandum preserved the loss dispute | Dokes: Sentencing memorandum raised the loss-timing argument (start July 2011) | Court: Scheduling Order expressly prohibited including PSR objections in sentencing memoranda; memorandum did not comply with required separate objection format | Court: memorandum insufficient to preserve objection |
| Whether objections would have been futile on the merits | Dokes: loss should start when he began actually earning income (July 2011) | Court/Govt: Overpayments begin when defendant is capable of substantial gainful activity; loss for §2B1.1 is greater of actual or intended loss and government could have shown earlier capability/intent | Court: even if considered, objections likely would not have prevailed; allowing late objections would have been futile |
| Whether PSR facts were admitted by failure to object with specificity | Dokes: contested the loss calculation | Court: Acceptance and lack of specific timely factual objections meant factual statements in PSR could be treated as true | Court: PSR facts were properly adopted absent timely, specific objections |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Almazan, [citation="414 F. App'x 902"] (8th Cir. 2011) (district court not an abuse of discretion in denying untimely PSR objections)
- United States v. White, 447 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2006) (defendant’s statements at sentencing can withdraw written objections)
- United States v. Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (PSR factual statements may be accepted as true absent specific, timely objections)
- United States v. Lemons, 792 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2015) (loss calculation under § 2B1.1 may consider intended loss and duration of scheme)