United States v. Mees
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mees, finance officer for Standing Rock Housing Authority, embezzled funds from 2003–2009 totaling $1,418,936 across a five-year scheme.
- He pled guilty to one count of theft concerning federal funds for $19,650 and the other counts were dismissed.
- PSR showed no prior criminal history points, resulting in a criminal history category I; advisory range 70–87 months.
- District court signaled a substantial upward departure, asserting Mees’s criminal history underrepresented his true history.
- Court ultimately applied a criminal history category IV, producing a new advisory range of 100–125 months and sentenced Mees to 120 months, restitution of $19,650, and 3 years of supervised release.
- Restitution limited to the single count’s amount; rest of restitution could not be ordered for the total loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward departure was procedurally proper | Mees contends departure based on underrepresented history was improper | Mees argues district court abused procedural rules in departure reasoning | Upward departure held proper; adequate explanation under §4A1.3 despite nonexplicitly listing other categories. |
| Whether the district court double-counted conduct | The same embezzlement conduct used to raise offense level and depart | Double counting allowed to reflect offense seriousness and offender characteristics | Not impermissible double counting; conduct supported both offense level and upward departure. |
| Whether §3553(a) factors were adequately explained | Court failed to individualized assessment per §3553(a) | Record showed explicit references to §3553(a) factors and adequate discussion | No significant procedural error; factors sufficiently considered. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable given race/ethnicity considerations | Court relied on race-based commentary to justify harsh sentence | Remarks were disagreement with defense, not reasons for sentence | No substantive error; comments not used as basis for punishment. |
| Whether socioeconomic status considerations improperly influenced sentence | Court’s remark about paying restitution implied reliance on means | Comment reflected restitution constraints, not defendant's status | Not improper; restitution limits rather than status consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (upward departure under §4A1.3 requires explanation beyond bare categories)
- United States v. Collins, 104 F.3d 143 (8th Cir. 1997) (guide for intermediate category consideration)
- United States v. Thornberg, 326 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2003) (double-counting considerations of offense severity and offender)
- United States v. Thin Elk, 321 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2003) (double counting and §4A1.3 reasoning precedents)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing; presumptively reasonable within range)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for procedural missteps on departures)
- United States v. Struzik, 572 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 2009) (§3553(a) factors; individualized assessment sufficiency)
- United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2009) (within-guidelines sentencing and departure considerations)
- United States v. Kaba, 480 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2007) (race-based sentencing concerns; need for remand in some contexts)
- United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (upward departure framework)