Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03696/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03696-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Thomas Kirsch
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3696

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Kevin Thomas Kirsch, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Kevin Kirsch guilty of conspiring to defraud the government, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and making false statements to a federal agency, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Kirsch, who was employed at a grain elevator

company in Minnesota, engaged in a scheme whereby North Dakota farmers would

sell durum wheat to Kirsch at discounted prices; Kirsch would provide the farmers

with false documentation reflecting a greater damage percentage to the durum wheat

enabling the farmers to obtain larger crop-insurance indemnity payments and disaster

payments under federal farm-aid programs; and Kirsch would later sell the durum

Appellate Case: 03-3696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055606
1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

wheat at a nondiscounted price. The district court1

 sentenced Kirsch to 47 months in

prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered restitution in the amount of

$751,759.59, portions of which are owed jointly and severally with other

codefendants.

On appeal Kirsch asserts that the restitution amount should be offset by the

amount farmers paid in insurance premiums to acquire crop insurance. He relies on

United States v. Huber, 404 F.3d 1047, 1059-62 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that

insurance premiums--both amount deducted by insurer from benefits paid to defendant

farmer and amount subsidized by government under crop-insurance program--could

not be included in forfeiture-amount calculation because defendant farmer never

actually received or controlled premiums, and thus could not have used such funds in

any financial transaction or to facilitate money-laundering offense). We disagree.

The restitution amount was calculated by subtracting the amount of indemnity

payments and disaster payments that the government would have made to farmers

with 20% grain damage from the amount of indemnity payments and disaster

payments actually made to the farmers whose grain was recorded with 35% or more

damage under Kirsch’s scheme. The propriety of this calculation--which relies on the

difference between the proper and fraudulent benefit payments--is unaffected by our

holding in Huber. The restitution amount is not clearly erroneous. See United States

v. Fogg, 409 F.3d 1022, 1028 (8th Cir. 2005) (clear error review of district court’s

determination of amount of restitution); United States v. Bougie, 279 F.3d 648, 650

(8th Cir. 2002) (when defendant fails to object to specific factual allegations contained

in PSR, district court may accept facts as true for purposes of sentencing”).

Kirsch also argues that the district court plainly erred when it sentenced him

under mandatory Guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245,

Appellate Case: 03-3696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055606
-3-

258-60 (2005); United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550-54 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). Although the district court sentenced Kirsch at the

bottom of the Guidelines range and, in denying Kirsch’s motion for a downward

departure, stated it was intimidated from departing by the potential of a Congressional

investigation, the court also stated its belief that a downward departure was not

warranted because Kirsch’s case was not outside the heartland of fraud cases. Further,

in imposing the 47-month sentence, the court stated that Kirsch had abused a position

of trust, what he did “was just plain wrong,” and he had to be justly punished for his

behavior and to afford deterrence. Thus, we conclude that Kirsch has not shown a

reasonable probability based on the record as a whole that he would have received a

more favorable sentence but for the treatment of the Guidelines as mandatory. See

United States v. Wingate, 415 F.3d 885, 889 (8th Cir. 2005) (although district court

sentenced defendant to bottom of applicable Guidelines range, defendant did not

demonstrate reasonable probability court would have imposed lesser sentence absent

Booker error where court denied downward departure and noted seriousness of

offense; where effect of error on sentence is uncertain or indeterminate and appeals

court would have to speculate, appellant has not met his burden of showing reasonable

probability that result would have been different but for error); Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553

(sentence at bottom of Guidelines range is insufficient, without more, to demonstrate

reasonable probability that court would have imposed lesser sentence absent Booker

error).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and we deny Kirsch’s

motion for a remand.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3696 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055606