## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 32 54

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Vern is Farm er, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 1
Fi le d: Aug us t 8 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, BENT ON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Vern is Farm er o f o n e c o u nt of m ak in g a fal se st at em en t to

ob ta in So ci al Secu rit y

Dis ab il it y

be ne fit s, an d t wo co un ts of kn owi ng ly con ceal in g

th at he earn ed wag es ab ov e th e in co m e t h r e s h o l d fo r di sa bi li ty pa y m en ts

. Se e 42

U.S.C. § 40 8( a)(3 )-(4 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 21 m on th s of 1

im pr is on m en t an d or de red $4 3,3 74 .50 in res ti tu ti on

. On ap pe al

, Farm er arg ue s th at

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.hi s se nt en ce i s u n r e a s o na bl e, an d fil es va rio us pr o se m ot io ns se ek in g rev ers al

.

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

I.

In 19 97

, Farm er ap pl ie d fo r an d e v en tu al ly rece iv ed Tit le II So ci al Secu rit y

Dis ab il it y be ne fit s. An Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e de te rm in ed th at Farm er qu al ifi ed

fo r be ne fit s du e t o se ve re m en ta l an d ph y si cal im pa irments : bo rd erl in e in te ll ect ua l

fu nc ti on in g, so m at of

or m di so rd er, a d i s c b ul ge or he rn ia ti on in th e lo wer ba ck

,

2

po st -tr au m at ic in ne r-ea r dys fu nc ti on res ul ti ng in pe rs is te nt ve rti go , an d whi pl as has so ci at ed ne ck st r a i n

. Farm er se rv ed ho no rab ly in th e Uni te d St at es Arm y fro m

19 76 -7 9 a nd 19 80 -8 4. Hi s d is ab il it y be ne fit s b eg an in 19 99

.

To be el ig ib le fo r So ci al Secu rit y Dis ab il it y be ne fit s, a pe rs on m us t be un ab le

to en ga ge in su bs ta nt ia l gai nf ul act iv it y (“ SGA”) for ext en de d per io ds

. SGA is an y

s i g n i f i c a nt ph y si cal or m en ta l act iv it y fo r whi ch th e m on th ly wag e ex ceed s a

th res ho ld set by t he So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on ($ 86 0 pe r m on th in 20 06 , $9 00

pe r m on th in 20 07

, et c.). Gen eral ly, on ce a be ne fic ia ry earn s ov er th e m on th ly SGA

a mo un t, be ne fit s are su sp en de d th e fo ll owi ng m on th

. The So ci al Secu r i t y

Adm in is tra ti on req ui res reg ul ar rep or ti ng of wor k act iv it y an d wag es , an d reci pi en ts

are rep eat e d l y w a rn ed th at fal se st at em en ts or m is rep res en ta ti on s carr y cri m in al

pe na lt ie s.

A so m at of

or m di so rd er is a m en ta l di so rd er ch arac te r i z ed by ph y si cal 2

sym pt om s th at su gg es t ph y si cal il ln es s or in jury, b u t whi ch ha ve no id en ti fia bl e ph y si cal cau se , i.e., m ed ic al te st res ul ts are e i t h e r no rm al or do no t ex pl ai n th e

pe rs on ’s sym

pt om s. S o mat o f

or m di so rd ers are no t th e res ul t of co ns ci ou s

m a l i n g e r i n g ( f

a b r i c a t i n g o r e x a g g e r a t i n g s y m p t o m s f o r s e c o n d a r y

m ot iv es )—s uf

fere rs pe rcei ve th ei r sym

pt om s as real

.

-2

-In earl y 20 03

, So ci al Secu rit y le arn ed th at Farm er ha d been wor ki ng si nc e 20 01

as th e Ch ie f of

Po li ce fo r Hay ti Heig ht s, M is so ur i, ea rn in g wag es ov er th e m on th ly

SGA am ou nt

. Bec au se Farm er was th us in el ig ib le fo r be ne f i t s , h e owe d So ci al

Secu rit y $1 5,3 88

. Farm er op po se d So ci al Secu rit y ’s at te m pt to e n d h i s be ne fit s,

cl ai m in g he was wor ki ng pa rt- ti m e or on m ed ic al le av e at va rio us ti m es du rin g 20 01

-
03

. In Aug us t 20 04

, Farm er rece iv ed a Not ic e of Dis ab il it y Ces sa ti on ; hi s pa y m en ts

st op pe d. The ov erp ay m en t was ev en tu al ly r e co ve red by wit hh ol di ng fro m th e

be ne fit s he recei ve d du rin g 20 05 -0 6, when he was on ce agai n eli gi bl e fo r di sa bi li ty

be ne fit s.

A m on th aft er h is be ne fit s en de d i n 2 00 4, Farm er re po rte d t o S oc ia l Se cu rit y

th at he ha d no t wor ke d in th e la st m on th du e to hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n, an d req ue st ed

ex pe di te d rei ns ta te m en t of di sa bi li ty be ne fit s. Fa r mer was gr an te d ex pe di te d

rei ns ta te m en t; hi s p ay m en ts res um ed

.

In Decem be r 20 06

, Farm er wro te So ci al Secu rit y , sa y in g he ha d res um ed pa rtti m e de sk du ti es a t t h e p o li ce de pa rtment, an d was rece iv in g in co m e of $8 00 pe r

m on th —b el ow th e m on th ly SGA li m it

. S o c i a l S e c ur it y pr ep ared a W or k Acti vi ty
Rep or t, an d fo rward ed it to Farm er fo r hi s si gn at ur e. The rep or t su mm a r i z e d t he

i n f o rm at io n in Farm er’s le tt er, st at ed he was earn in g $8 00 pe r m on th

, an d warn e d

h i m, jus t ab ov e hi s si gn at ur e, th at it is a cri m e to m ak e a fal se st at em en t fo r us e in

de te rm in in g a rig ht to So ci al Secu rit y pa ym e n t s

. Farm er si gn ed th e W or k Acti vi ty
Rep or t i n M arch 20 07 , and co nt in ue d t o re cei ve di sa bi li ty ben efi ts

.

In 20 09

, th e So c i a l S e c ur it y Adm in is tra ti on rece iv ed an an on y m ou s ti p th at

Farm er was wor ki ng fu ll -ti m e as th e po li ce ch ie f an d earn in g in ex ces s o f th e SGA

li m it

. An in ve st ig at io n rev eal ed th at be twee n Nov em be r 20 06 an d Feb r u a ry 20 07

, th e ci ty pa id Farm er m or e th an $1 ,60 0 pe r m on th as po li ce ch ie f—we ll ov er bo th th e

SGA li m it an d t h e a mou nt Farm er rep or te d in Mar ch 20 07

. A rev ie w of th e ci ty’ s

pa y ro ll reco rd s de te rm in ed th at Farm er was in el ig ib le fo r m or e th an $4 0,0 00 in So ci al

-3

-Secu rit y Dis ab il it y be ne fit s rece iv ed si nc e 20 03 (wh en Farm er in it ia ll y go t in tro ub le

fo r fai li ng to rep or t th at he was earn in g wages in ex ces s of th e m on th ly SGA li m it ).

Farm er was in di ct ed fo r m ak in g a fal se st at em en t to ob ta in So ci al Secu rit y

Dis ab il it y be ne fit s an d kn owi ng ly co nc eal in g th at he earn ed wag es ab ov e th e SGA

th res ho ld

. At tri al

, he de ni ed an y in te nt to de frau d So ci al Secu rit y , of feri ng va rio us

ex pl an at io ns fo r ho w he rece iv ed ov er $8 00 pe r m on th in pa y m en ts

. Acco rd in g to

hi m , m an y of th e ch eck s fro m th e ci ty were fo r “ m ed ic al le av e” or ba ck pa y , no t fu ll

ti m e wor k. The ci ty, whi ch in rece nt ye a r s h a s ex pe rie nc ed pr ecar io us fin an ces , ad m it te d th at Farm er ha d rece iv ed ba ck or la te pa y at ti m es to he lp it m eet pa y ro ll

,

an d t ha t t he cit y

cu rren tl y owe d hi m ab ou t $3 ,00 0 fo r a po li ce car he pu rch as ed for

th e ci ty’ s u se

.

Afte r a jury tri al

, Farm er was fo un d gu il ty. His ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge was

21 -2 7 m on th s. At se nt en ci ng , th e go ve r n m en t arg ue d fo r an up ward de pa rtu re or

va ria nc e to 32 m on th s to refl ect Farm er’s st at us as a la w en fo rcem en t o f fic er who

rep eat ed ly br ok e th e la w fo r y ears

. Farm er, th en 52 y ears ol d, req ue st ed a do wnwar d

va ria nc e be cau se of hi s Arm y an d po li ce se rv ic e; hi s m en ta l an d ph y si cal he al th ; an d

hi s v ul ne rab il it y

in pri so n a s an ex -p ol ic e o ffi cer.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r an up ward de pa rtu re or

va ria nc e, an d im

po se d a se nt en ce of 21 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, at th e b ot to m of th e

gu id el in es ran ge :

I do n’t th in k y ou are a ba d pe rs on , Mr. Farme r, bu t at th e sa m e

ti m e, I ag ree wit h th e jury’ s ve rd ic t as I m en ti on ed to y ou be fo re, an d th e

m os t im po rta nt th in g – th e m os t im po rta nt pi ece of ev id en ce in th at cas e

was th e fact th at y ou ’d al read y go tt en in to th e sa m e tr ou bl e be fo re and

yo u ’d ha d th is ad m in is tra ti ve he ari ng an d y ou ha d be en pe na li z e d

th ro ug h th at ad m in is tra ti ve he ari ng an d or de red to pa y ba ck th at ot he r

-4

-$1 5,0 00 pl us fo r ro ug hl y th e sa m e ki nd of m is co nd uc t.

. . . And it ’s cl ear

to th e Co ur t th at y ou in te nd ed to ap pl y fo r th es e ex tra be ne fit s at th e

ti m e y ou kn ew th at y ou were wor ki ng , an d so th at ’s a co nc ern to th e

Co ur t.

I do reco gn iz e th ou gh wha t y o u r l a wy er ha s sa id ab ou t y ou r

pe rs on al h i s t o r y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th at y ou ha ve se rio us is su es wit h

y ou r ph y si cal an d y ou r m en ta l he al th

, an d th os e are m it ig at in g

ci rcu m st an ces to th e Co ur t.

Fo r th os e reas on s, pu rs ua nt to th e Sen te nc in g Refo rm Act of 19 84

an d th e pr ov is io ns an d al l th e fact or s se t o u t i n Tit le XVIII, Uni te d

St at es Co de

, S e c t i o n 35 53 (a), an d al so in vi ew of th e se nt en ci ng

ob jecti ve s of

jus t pu ni sh m en t an d ge ne ral de te rren ce an d in cap aci ta ti on ,

an d le t m e al so sa y an d als o in th e Co ur t’s vie w th at th ere is no ch an ce

wha ts oe ve r th at y ou wil l co m m it a cri m e of th is so rt ev er ag ai n, it is th e ju d g men t an d se nt en ce of th e Co ur t th at y ou sh al l be im pr is on ed fo r a

te rm of 21 m on th s. That ter m co ns is ts of a ter m

of 2 1 m on th s o n e ach

of Co un ts One th ro ug h Thre e; al l su ch te rm s to ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. Now

th at is th e bo tt om en d of th e S en te nc in g Gui de li ne s, Mr. Farm er. The

Gov ern m en t as ke d fo r 32 m on th s. The g ui de li ne s pr ov id e 21 to 27

m on th s, so I am g i v i n g y ou th e ve ry lo w en d of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s, an d I ho pe y ou can ap pr eci at e th en th at th is is a l e n ie nt

se nt en ce t ha t’s b ei ng im

po se d a ga in st y ou

.

Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed

.

-5

-II.

Farm er ch a l l e n g e s hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at 21 m on th s in pr is on is

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se : 1) it co nt rad ic ts th e di st ric t co ur t’s sp eci f i c

fin di ng th at hi s m en ta l an d ph y si cal di sa bi li ti es m it ig at ed th e cri m e, an d th e gu id el in e

ran ge d o e s n o t acco un t fo r th os e fact or s; an d 2) it fai ls to gi ve an y effe ct to th e

co ur t’s fin di ng t h a t t h e r e was “ no ch an ce wha ts oe ve r th at [Far m er] wil l co m m it a

cri m e of th is so r t e v e r a g a in .” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (C) (req ui rin g co ur ts to

co ns id er th e ne ed fo r th e se nt en ce im po se d “ to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er cri m es

of th e de fen da nt ”). Farm er als o fau lt s th e di st ric t co ur t for referr in g to hi s sen te nc e

as “ le ni en t” in co nt ras ti ng th e bo tt om of th e gu id el in e ran ge (2 1 m o n t h s ) w i th th e

go ve rn m en t’s req ue st fo r 32 m on th s. Acco rd in g to Farm er, th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by

us in g th e go ve rn m en t’s req ue st ed se nt en ce as a po in t of de pa rtu re, whe n th e co ur t ha d

pr ev io us ly reject ed th e br each -o f-t he -p ub li c-t ru st rat io na le fo r th e go ve rn m en t’s

pr op os ed sen te nc e.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws se nt en ces in tw o s t e p s : fir st

, fo r si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al

erro r; a n d i f th ere is no ne , fo r su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

. Unit ed St at es v.

O’Co nno r , 56 7 F.3 d 39 5, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Bec au se Farme r d o e s n ot al le ge

pr oc ed ur al erro r, th is co ur t rev ie ws th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce

un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

, acco rd in g a “ pr es um pt io n of

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss ” to se nt en ces wit hi n th e gu id el in es ran ge

. Unit ed St at es

v. Lule ff

, 57 4 F.3 d 56 6, 56 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). A di st ric t co ur t m ay gr an t a do wnwar d

va ria nc e fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge aft er co ns id eri ng th e fact or s se t ou t in 18

U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Unit

ed St at es v. Fo st er , 51 4 F.3 d 82 1, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 8 )

. A

di st ric t co ur t is no t req ui red to m ech an ic al ly recit e th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s,

bu t it m us t be cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at th e di st r i c t c o u r t a c tu al ly co ns id ered th e

fact or s in fas hi on in g a se nt en ce. Unit ed St at es v. Fee m st

er , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). An ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs whe n: 1) a co ur t fai ls to co ns id er

a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rec e i ve d si gn ifi can t weig ht ; 2) a co ur t gi ve s

-6

-si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or 3) a co ur t co ns id ers on ly th e

ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th em co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t. Unit ed

St at es v. Ka ne , 55 2 F .3d 74 8, 7 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

In th i s c a s e , th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e se nt en ci ng fact or s in § 35 53 (a)

an d co nc lu de d th at a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in es ran ge was warra nt ed —a

co nc lu si on th is co ur t on ap pe al m ay pr es um e was r e as on ab le

. Se e Ri ta v. Unit ed

St at es , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 34 7 (2 00 7) ; Unit ed Sta te s v. Li nco ln , 41 3 F .3d 71 6, 7 17 (8t h

Ci r. 20 05 ). Farm er arg ue s th at th e co ur t’s fin di ng s on th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s are

in te rn al ly in co ns is te nt wit h th e su bs eq ue nt se nt en ce. Se e Unit ed St a t e s v

. B ro wn , 45 3 F.3 d 10 24

, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (v acat in g a be lo w-g ui de li ne s se nt en ce whe re th e

va ria n c e w a s ba se d on th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at wit ne ss es te st ifyin g to dr ug

qu an ti ty were of du bi ou s cred ib il it y , y et th e co ur t im pl ic it ly fo un d th e sa m e dr ug

qu an ti ty te st imo n y c r e d i bl e by us in g it to cal cu la te th e gu id el in es ran ge ); Unit ed

St at es v. Por ti ll

o , 45 8 F.3 d 82 8, 82 9- 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (s am e). The gi st of Farm er’s

arg um en t is th at hi s se nt en ce co nt rad ic ts it se lf be cau se he rece iv ed a gu id el in es -ran ge

se nt en ce al th ou gh th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d in it s § 35 53 (a) an al y si s th at hi s m en ta l an d
ph y si cal co nd it io n m it ig at ed hi s cri m es

. Bec a u s e t h e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es do no t

acco un t fo r a de fen da nt ’s men t a l an d ph y si cal co nd it io n in se tt in g th e ap pl ic ab le

ran ge , so th e arg um en t go es , th e on ly reas on ab le

, in di vi du a l i z ed se nt en ce fo r hi m

3

was on e b el ow t he ap pl ic ab le ran ge

.

Thi s arg um en t fai ls

. Thi s cas e do es no t pr es en t co nt rad ic to ry or in t ern al lyin co ns is te nt fin di ng s in fas hi on in g a se nt en ce li ke th os e fo un d in Bro wn an d Por ti ll o

. Here, th e di s tri ct co ur t no te d th at Farm er’s m en ta l an d ph y si cal di sa bi li ti es were

Farm er was se nt en ced be fo re th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pr om

ul ga te d 3

Am en dm en t 73 9, whi ch ch an ge d U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1 .3 an d .4 to m ak e a d e f e nd an t’s

m en ta l an d ph y si cal co nd it io n rel ev an t in de te rm in in g whe th er a de pa rtu re fro m th e

gu id el in es ran ge is warran te d.

-7

-mi t ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces , an d th at th ere was no ris k he wou ld reci di v a t e ,

whi ch —co ns is te nt wit h th os e fin di ng s— m eri te d a se nt en ce at th e ve ry bo tt om of th e

ran ge

. Farm er es se nt ia ll y arg ue s th at th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gi ve n m or e weig ht to

se nt en ci ng fact or s in hi s fav or : hi s m en ta l an d ph y si cal co nd it io n, an d lo w li ke li ho od

of reci di vi sm

. Howev er, reg ard le ss of so m e m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces , a se nt en ci ng

co ur t h as wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i n e ach cas e an d a ss ig n s om e

fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de t e r m in in g an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce. Unit ed

St at es v. Loz oy a , 62 3 F.3 d 62 4, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Si m pl y be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d rel ev an t fact or s— su ch as hi s pr io r sa nc ti on by S o c i a l Secu rit y —m or e

he av il y th an Farm er wou ld pr efer do es no t mea n t h e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n. Unit

ed Sta te s v. B ri dg es , 56 9 F .3d 37 4, 3 79 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

I n d e e d, th e di st ric t co ur t was rel at iv el y “ le ni en t” in se nt en ci ng Farm er to 21

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t, in li gh t of th e co ur t’s em ph as i s th at th e “ m os t im

po rta nt pi ece of ev id en ce” was Farm er’s pr io r hi st or y of si m il ar m is co nd uc t— be in g cau gh t

in 20 04 acce pt in g di sa bi li ty pa y m en ts fro m 20 01 to 20 03 whi le hi s in co m e ex ceed ed

th e m on th ly SGA am ou nt

. In th e co ur t’s vi ew, F a rm er was cl earl y aware he was

do in g wro ng in th e fo ll owi ng y ears by co nt in ui ng to acce pt be n e f i ts

. A di st ric t

co ur t’s ch oi ce to as si gn rel at iv el y gr eat er weig ht to th e na tu re and ci rcu m st an ces of

th e of fen se th an to th e m it i g a t i n g pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt is well

wit hi n it s wid e la ti tu de in weig hi ng rel ev an t fact or s. Unit ed St at es v. Fo y , 61 7 F.3 d

10 29 , 10 37 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

The se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt do es no t su pp or t Farm er’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co m

m it te d erro r by de em in g hi s se nt en ce “ l e n i e n t ” in co m pa ris on to th e 32

m on th s t he go ve rn m en t s ou gh t. The go ve rn m en t ex pl ic it ly did no t s eek an up ward

ad jus tm en t in th e ba se of

fen se le ve l ba se d on U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3

, fo r a two

- l ev el

en ha nc em en t if th e de fen da nt ab us es a po si ti on of pu bl ic tru st in co m m it ti ng a cri m e.

The go ve rn m en t in st ead req ue st ed an up ward de pa rtu re or va ria nc e be cau se Farm er,

w hil e co m

m it ti ng hi s cri m es , was th e ch ie f la w en fo rcem en t of fic er of his co m

m uni ty

.

-8

-The di st ric t co ur t’s refe ren ce to th e go ve rn m en t’s req ue st ed se nt en ce was no t in erro r

or ot he rwis e in ap pr op ria te

, as an up ward de pa rtu re or va ria nc e was wit hi n th e ran ge

of op ti on s at se nt en ci ng

. Se e U.S.S.G. § 5K2 .0 (au t h o r i z i ng an up ward de pa rtu re

fro m th e gu id el in es ran ge if th e co ur t fin ds an ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce of a ki nd no t

ad eq ua te ly tak en in to co ns id erat io n b y th e Sen te nc in g Com m is si on ); Unit ed Sta te s

v. Ma yb ou , 37 9 Fed .App x. 48 9, 49 1- 92 (6 t h C i r

. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ) (aff irming

up ward va ria nc e g i v e n to a co rrec ti on al of fic er be cau se of “ th e pe cu li ar tru st th at

so ci et y pl aces in po li ce of fic ers ”); Unit

ed St at es v. Ar ro yo , 54 6 F.3d 54

, 57 -5 8 (1s t

Ci r. 20 08 ) (aff

irming up ward va ria nc e gi ve n be cau se de fen da nt was a po li ce of fic er).

In su m , th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered ap pr opria te facto rs an d pr ov id ed ad eq ua te

, in te rn al ly-con si st en t reas on s in im po si ng a reas on ab le se nt en ce. Giv en Far m er’s

hi st or y o f acce pt in g di sa bi li ty be ne fit s whi le co nt in ui ng to wor k, a se nt en ce at th e

ve ry bo tt om of hi s gu id el in es ran ge is no t an ab us e of th e di st ric t co ur t’s su bs ta nt ia l

di sc ret io n. Cf

. Unit ed St at es v. Laz ar

sk i , 56 0 F .3d 73 1, 7 33 (8t h C ir. 20 09 ) (wh en

a se nt en ce is be l o w t h e g u i d el in es ran ge , “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t

ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n n ot va ry in g d own ward st il l fu rth er.”)

.

III.

Afte r th e br ie fs on ap pe al were su bm it te d, Farm er m ov ed pr o se to su pp le m en t

hi s rep ly br ie f, br oa dl y al le gi ng th at th e go ve rn m en t wit hh el d ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce

in vi ol at io n of th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. Afte r su bm is si on of th e cas e, Farm er m ov ed pr o se

t o d i s c h arg e hi s ap po in te d at to rn ey , as se rti ng th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e in

fai li ng to pr es en t ch arac te r ev id en ce at tri al

, rai se an is su e of hi s m en ta l co m pe te nc y ,

or m ov e fo r a ne w tri al ba se d on ne wly-dis co ve red ev id en ce. Th i s co ur t gr an te d

Farm er’s m ot io n t o re li ev e h is ap po in te d c ou ns el

.

To th e ex te nt Farm er ha s pe nd in g pa pe rs be fo re th is co ur t th at co ul d be br oa dl y

co ns tru ed as 1) a m ot io n to ex pa nd th e rec or d o n a pp eal ; 2 ) a p ro se b rie f arg ui ng a

-9

-vi ol at io n of Bra dy v. Mar yl an d

, 37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3) ; or 3) a pr o se br ie f arg ui ng

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n v io la ti on of St ri ckl an d v. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S.

66 8 (19 84 ), th is co ur t d en ie s t he m ot io n a nd de cl in es to ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts at

th is ti m e. Bec au se th is co ur t ha s on ly p r o s e mo t i o ns an d an un de ve lo pe d fact ua l

reco rd on th es e cl ai m s, th ey are be tt er le ft to a co ll at eral pr oc eed in g un de r 28 U.S.C.

§ 22 55

. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. McI nt os h

, 49 2 F.3 d 95 6, 96 1 n. 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(n ot in g th at th is co ur t ge ne ral ly do es no t co ns id er pr o se br ie fs whe n an ap pe ll an t is

r e p r e s e n t e d by co un se l); Unit ed St at es v. Co ok

, 35 6 F.3 d 91 3, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 4 )
(d ecl in in g to co ns id er in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l c la im on di rect ap pe al in

ab se nc e o f fu ll y -d ev el op ed reco rd or ob vi ou sl y -d efi ci en t co un se l); Ma nd ac in a v.

Unit ed St at es , 32 8 F.3 d 99 5, 99 9- 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (a cl ai m ed Bra dy vi ol at io n is

co gn iz ab le in a m ot io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 ).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-