United States v. Teresa Kobriger
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10522
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Teresa Ann Kobriger, a bank employee (head teller then VP), embezzled approximately $144,181.47 from Iowa Falls State Bank between 2008 and 2012; total restitution (including fees) was $181,393.63.
- Theft went undetected until 2014; Kobriger initially lied about the discrepancy but shortly thereafter admitted the embezzlement.
- Kobriger pled guilty to embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. § 656.
- At sentencing she sought a downward variance based on lack of criminal history, family and community ties, mental health and character evidence, and substantial restitution payments (had paid $159,181.47 by sentencing).
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was 21–27 months; the district court denied the downward variance and imposed a 21‑month sentence and five years supervised release.
- Kobriger appealed the sentence as substantively and procedurally unreasonable; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion by denying downward variance based on restitution payments | Kobriger: large restitution payments show remorse and rehabilitation warranting a lower sentence | Govt: payments do not require a lower sentence; sentencing court may weigh them against other § 3553(a) factors | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered payments and reasonably declined to vary downward |
| Whether lack of criminal history required or supported a downward variance | Kobriger: absence of prior convictions should weigh in favor of leniency; court mischaracterized this as facilitating the crime | Govt: nature and duration of offense mitigate force of no prior record | Court: No procedural error; court considered lack of record and found it did not sway outcome |
| Whether sentencing court procedurally erred by failing to consider relevant § 3553(a) factors | Kobriger: court ignored or minimized favorable factors (payments, character, history) | Govt: court addressed factors and explained its weighing | Court: No procedural error; sentencing colloquy shows adequate consideration |
| Whether within‑Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable | Kobriger: mitigating circumstances made Guidelines sentence excessive | Govt: within‑range sentence presumptively reasonable given offense severity and trust breach | Court: Affirmed as not an abuse of discretion; within‑range sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (appellate standard: deferential abuse of discretion for sentencing review)
- United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standards for sentencing explained)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences within Guidelines are rarely reversed as substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (courts should seldom reverse within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Scales, 735 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2013) (within‑Guidelines sentence afforded presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2013) (defendant character and community ties may support a downward variance)