United States v. Farmer
647 F.3d 1175
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Farmer was convicted of making a false statement to obtain Social Security Disability benefits and concealing wages above the SGA threshold.
- Farmer had received Title II disability benefits since 1999 for multiple impairments, including intellectual functioning limits and somatoform disorder.
- Between 2001–2003 Farmer earned wages as a police chief, exceeding the monthly SGA limit, leading to an overpayment and a 2004 notice of disability cessation.
- In 2006–2007 Farmer reported earnings below the SGA limit; he signed a Work Activity Report warning that false statements are crimes, and benefits continued.
- In 2009 SSA learned of ongoing overpayments; Farmer was indicted and convicted; the district court sentenced him to 21 months (concurrent on all counts) and ordered restitution of $43,374.50; the government sought a longer sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 21-month sentence is substantively reasonable. | Farmer argues severity is warranted adaptation to mitigating disabilities. | United States contends departure/variance to 32 months appropriate given public-trust concerns. | Sentence within bottom of range deemed reasonable; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the district court properly weighed 3553(a) factors. | Farmers’s disabilities and low recidivism should lower sentence. | Court correctly weighed factors and gave weight to offense history. | Court's weighing was permissible and supported by record. |
| Whether reference to the government's proposed sentence shows improper departure. | Court's leniency remark reveals improper reliance on government's request. | Reference was proper; upward departure/variance within range was available. | No error; district court could consider the government's request. |
| Whether any procedural errors require remand or collateral review. | Possible Brady/ineffective-assistance issues warrant reversal. | Papers are better suited for collateral review; not addressed on direct appeal. | Claims dismissed or deferred for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (gives framework for reviewing within-range sentences with presumption of reasonableness)
- O'Connor, 567 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2009) (two-step review for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumes reasonableness of within-range sentences)
- Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; requires evidence of consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
- Bridges v. United States, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (court may weigh factors to resolve disputes)
- Foy, 617 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court may weigh offense characteristics over mitigating traits)
- Lazarski v. United States, 560 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (below-range sentences rarely abused discretion)