Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02305/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02305-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carla Jane Alexander
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2305

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Carla Jane Alexander, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carla Jane Alexander pleaded guilty to concealing work activity from the Social

Security Administration. Alexander did not stipulate to an amount of loss. At

Alexander’s post-Booker sentencing, the district court*

 took evidence on the amount

of loss and sentenced Alexander below the advisory guidelines range to a year and a

day in prison and three years of supervised release. 

Appellate Case: 05-2305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022541
-2-

Alexander appeals asserting her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were

violated when the district court found the amount of loss by a preponderance of the

evidence. Because the district court applied the guidelines in an advisory manner, the

court was only required to find the amount of loss by a preponderance of evidence.

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Contrary to

Alexander’s assertion, the district court could take evidence during the sentencing

hearing and find the amount of loss based on that evidence. United States v.

Townsend, 408 F.3d 1020, 1022 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Alexander also contends the court’s amount-of-loss finding is too high.

According to Alexander, the district court should have considered evidence tending

to contradict the Government’s claim that Alexander would not have qualified for

disability payments absent her concealment of work activity, and did not properly

consider how the social security administration determines eligibility for disability

payments in the face of reported work activity. We review the district court’s

calculation of loss for clear error, United States v. Craiglow, 432 F.3d 816, 820 (8th

Cir. 2005), and find none. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the

district court’s method for calculating the amount of loss was reasonable. Id. A

government agent testified about the amount of benefits paid and Alexander’s

ineligibility for any of the benefits given her substantial gainful activity. The court

permitted Alexander to cross-examine the witness about partial eligibility for benefits,

and merely warned counsel his line of questioning was inconsistent with Alexander’s

plea agreement.

We thus affirm Alexander’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022541