United States v. Ralph Frisch
704 F.3d 541
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Frisch pleaded guilty to one count of concealment from the SSA under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4).
- District court sentenced Frisch below the advisory Guidelines range, prompting an appeal as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- Frisch initially received SSDI benefits; surveillance and later SSA interview led to admission of work in manual labor and termination of benefits.
- Total improper SSDI benefits received: $86,160; PSR used loss and intended-loss calculations, determining a higher offense level.
- Intended loss calculated as $124,770 (if not caught, continued receiving benefits to age 66), triggering a 10-level increase; total offense level 13, criminal history VI, advisory range 33–41 months.
- District court sentenced Frisch to 25 months consecutive to a state sentence, considering age, health, and restitution; Frisch appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation procedural issue | Frisch argues the intended loss should not include post-discovery amounts. | Frisch contends the district court erred in accepting the government's intended loss calculation. | No procedural error; district court reasonably used intended loss. |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Sentence is greater than necessary; he restitution and health mitigate. | Court properly weighed factors and chose a sentence well below the Guidelines. | Not an abuse of discretion; sentence was substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural vs. substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Jenkins, 578 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2009) (loss estimation of properly calculated loss within guidelines)
- Henderson v. United States, 416 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2005) (intended loss defined by what would occur absent discovery)
- United States v. Rettenberger, 344 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003) (intended loss; incentives to continue fraud relevance)
- United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence below guidelines plausibly within discretion)
- United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (downward variance considerations when below-range sentencing)
- United States v. Robinson, 639 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for guidelines interpretation and factual findings)