United States v. Walbert Farmer
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11905
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Farmer attempted to extort a casino employee (Allen) by calling under an alias and threatening to reveal misuse of a company credit card unless paid; scheme failed and Farmer pled guilty to violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) and 875(d).
- Farmer received a 22-month prison sentence and three years of supervised release; the probation office recommended special conditions that were not disclosed to defense counsel before sentencing.
- The district court imposed, among other conditions, (1) a broad warrantless-search condition permitting searches of person, vehicle, office, home, computer, and property without reasonable suspicion and (2) a ban on self-employment during supervised release.
- Defense counsel objected only to the self-employment ban at sentencing; Farmer did not expressly approve the search condition and had limited opportunity to challenge the undisclosed probation recommendations.
- The Seventh Circuit found the district court gave inadequate justification linking either condition to Farmer’s offense conduct or statutory sentencing objectives and vacated both conditions, remanding for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of broad, warrantless search condition | Government defended condition as a probation-recommended supervision tool | Farmer argued condition lacked nexus to extortion and was imposed without explanation or prior notice | Vacated — court required justification showing relation to offense and §3553(a) factors |
| Waiver/standard of review for failure to object at sentencing | Government argued Farmer waived objection by not expressly objecting after sentence pronounced | Farmer contended he had no meaningful opportunity to object to undisclosed probation recommendations | Court declined to fix standard (plain error vs. abuse) but ruled condition invalid under either standard |
| Validity of ban on self-employment as an occupational restriction | Government urged restriction to prevent future fraud and protect public | Farmer argued no reasonably direct relationship between extortion offense and his self-employment | Vacated — court found district court failed to show the required nexus under §3563(b)(5)/U.S.S.G. §5F1.5 |
| Disclosure of probation’s recommended conditions before sentencing | N/A (Government/probation practice defended confidentiality) | Farmer noted lack of notice impeded meaningful challenge | Court criticized non-disclosure practice, recommended sharing recommendations earlier to allow effective objections |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (court skepticism about broad suspicionless search conditions absent justification)
- United States v. O’Malley, 739 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirmative statement of no objection at sentencing can constitute waiver)
- United States v. Allen, 529 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2008) (failure to object at sentencing treated as waiver when counsel had strategic reason to forgo objection)
- United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2008) (occupational restriction requires explanation linking occupation to offense conduct)
- United States v. Peterson, 711 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013) (probation recommendations may be confidential but factual information must be disclosed to defendant)