Opinion ID: 6496058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sentencing and Appeal

Text: The Probation Office calculated Farmer’s base offense level as 43, the highest possible offense level, a criminal history score of 12, and a criminal history category of V in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). As Farmer was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the most serious “underlying racketeering activity”—here, murder—determined Farmer’s base offense level. Probation recommended a fourlevel upward adjustment to Farmer’s base offense level because he was “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Because Farmer’s base offense level was already at the maximum, Farmer’s effective total offense level remained 43. Farmer’s offense level and criminal history score yielded a recommended Guidelines range of life imprisonment. The district court sentenced Farmer on October 27, 2020. Farmer represented himself pro se and raised various objections related to his trial and convictions. The district court overruled these factual objections and adopted the PSR without change. The district court sentenced Farmer to a term of life imprisonment on each count of conviction. Farmer raises two primary challenges to his conviction and sentence on appeal. First, Farmer argues his conviction 10 No. 20-3119 for RICO conspiracy was not supported by sufficient evidence. Second, Farmer claims the jury’s special finding he murdered Lowry and Siegers in connection with his membership in the Latin Kings was not supported by sufficient evidence, rendering his sentencing procedurally infirm. Although represented on appeal by appointed counsel, we granted Farmer leave to submit a supplemental pro se brief in which he presented nine additional bases for appeal. First, Farmer claims the government improperly used a federal task force officer to procure a search warrant. Second, Farmer argues the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress Holodick’s identification sketch. Third, Farmer maintains the district court erred in admitting evidence of Holodick’s photographic array identification. Fourth, Farmer suggests the district court erred in admitting evidence seized during the May 2001 search of his father’s home. Fifth, Farmer argues the district court wrongly declined to instruct the jury on the corroboration rule. Sixth, Farmer claims the government constructively amended the indictment. Seventh, Farmer claims the district court improperly imposed a leadership enhancement at sentencing. Eighth, Farmer maintains the government committed prosecutorial misconduct at trial. Ninth and finally, Farmer asserts the government gave an improper closing argument. None of Farmer’s bases for appeal—either raised by appointed counsel or pro se—are meritorious.