United States v. Koestner, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26105

Koestner pleaded guilty to one count of tampering with a witness related to fraudulent food stamp use at his Centerville, Iowa grocery store.
The district court sentenced Koestner to one year of probation and imposed a $100,000 fine.
The fine exceeded the advisory guidelines range by $70,000 but remained within the statutory maximum of $250,000.
Koestner is described as a relatively wealthy retailer who profited from the food stamp program misuse.
The district court characterized Koestner's conduct as extremely egregious and aimed to deter similar conduct with a substantial fine rather than prison.
Koestner appealed arguing the fine was substantively unreasonable and based on wealth rather than offense, challenging the court’s reasoning and post-sentence explanations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fine is substantively reasonable.	Koestner argues the fine is improper due to wealth-based calculation.	Koestner contends the court relied on socio-economic status contrary to policy guidance.	Fine upheld as reasonable.
Whether wealth-based considerations violate §5H1.10 in setting fines.	Koestner asserts wealth should not influence punishment per §5H1.10.	Koestner acknowledges statutory factors allow considering income and resources.	Statutory factors control; wealth-based reasoning permissible in context.
Whether the district court properly explained the rationale for an upward variance in the fine.	Koestner argues post-sentence explanations should be disregarded on appeal.	Koestner accepts the explanation as part of the sentence record.	Court may consider the district court's explanation for the upward variance.

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness; post-sentencing statements considered)