Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01959/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01959-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Felder
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1959

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Billy Felder, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2007

Filed: June 5, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Felder appeals the 30-month prison sentence imposed by the district court1

upon Felder’s guilty plea to charges of fraud and identity theft. Felder argues that the

district court erred in its consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

by failing to give adequate weight to his family circumstances and to the mitigating

characteristics of his offense, and by placing undue weight on the deterrent effect of

a prison sentence.

Appellate Case: 06-1959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2007 Entry ID: 3316120
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the

section 3553(a) factors, and that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable. See

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentences are reviewed

to determine whether district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable

sentence); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1115-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (district

court abuses its discretion if it overlooks significant factor, gives improper weight to

any factor, or makes clear error in judgment). The court considered Felder’s family

circumstances in sentencing him at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, and

his circumstances warranted no greater reduction. Cf. United States v. Bueno, 443

F.3d 1017, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (defendant not entitled to downward departure

based on wife’s lupus and arthritis where condition was not life-threatening and

defendant's care was not necessary part of wife’s treatment). The “mitigating

characteristics” Felder refers to amount to his failure to recoup the proceeds of his

fraudulent scheme from relatives, who apparently told Felder they had never received

the fraudulently obtained money; we do not see how this provides a basis for a more

lenient sentence. Finally, the district court appropriately weighed, along with other

section 3553(a) factors, the need to deter Felder and others from committing fraud.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) (one factor court must consider in sentencing is

affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct); cf. United States v. Miller, No.

06-2875, 2007 WL 1264071, at *3 (8th Cir. May 2, 2007) (reversing sentence as

unreasonable because, inter alia, district court failed to weigh sentence’s effect of

deterring others; noting general deterrence is one key purpose of sentencing); United

States v. Garnette, 474 F.3d 1057, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding district court did

not abuse its discretion in varying upward from advisory Guidelines range, based in

part on district court’s reasoning that longer sentence would deter criminal conduct

of others).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2007 Entry ID: 3316120