United States v. Brewer
978 F. Supp. 2d 710 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing court has the discretion to impose a non-custodial sentence, such as probation, and depart significantly from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines' recommended term of imprisonment by weighing the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly when the defendants' unique history and characteristics, such as advanced age and severe medical infirmity, render a prison sentence excessively punitive or impractical.
Facts:
- Donald Dean Brewer and Sherri Lynn Brewer were a married couple living in Clovis, New Mexico.
- In 2003, the Brewers, along with an associate, created a sham subcontracting company called Enterprise & Deployment LLC (E & D).
- While Donald Brewer worked as a programmer for a prime government contractor, they inserted E & D into contracts to provide computer technology for U.S. Air Force medical systems.
- E & D provided no useful service and was used to fraudulently inflate charges on the contracts, resulting in overcharges to the Air Force.
- The scheme generated approximately $6.45 million in fraudulent gains, about half of which went directly to the Brewers.
- In August 2004, after the fraud began, Donald Brewer was in an airplane crash that left him with severe and permanent injuries, including paralysis, constant pain, and confinement to a wheelchair.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Dean Brewer and Sherri Lynn Brewer were indicted by a federal grand jury on seventeen counts, including conspiracy to defraud and wire fraud.
- The case was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting the Brewers on all counts.
- At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a sentence of five years probation on each count, asset forfeiture, and restitution, which was a significant downward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines that recommended 108-135 months in prison for Mr. Brewer and 70-87 months for Mrs. Brewer.
- The District Court issued this post-judgment opinion to explain the rationale for its sentencing decision, in aid of an anticipated appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court have the discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence of probation for a major fraud conviction, thereby departing from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines which recommend a significant term of imprisonment, based on the defendants' advanced age, severe medical conditions, and other sentencing goals like cost-effectiveness and the limits of deterrence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Fred Biery
Yes. A district court has the discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence of probation and depart from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The court's reasoning rests on a holistic application of the statutory sentencing factors. The history and characteristics of the defendants weigh heavily, as Mr. Brewer is 64 and severely disabled from a plane crash, making a lengthy prison term a practical life sentence. His wife, Mrs. Brewer, is his primary caregiver. For retribution, the court finds that the forfeiture of all assets and public shame in their small town are substantial punishments, and the high cost of incarcerating an inmate with severe medical needs makes prison fiscally unsound. The court is skeptical of the deterrent effect of imprisonment for white-collar crime, citing numerous high-profile examples of criminals who were not deterred by the fates of their predecessors. Finally, incapacitation is achieved through probation conditions, and Mr. Brewer's medical needs are better addressed outside the prison system, satisfying the rehabilitation factor. Citing precedent like United States v. Duhon, the court affirms that a sentence is substantively reasonable when it is based on the unique circumstances of the case, even if it contravenes the Guidelines' recommendations.
Analysis:
This opinion serves as a powerful assertion of judicial discretion in the post-Booker era, where the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. It underscores a judge's authority to craft an individualized sentence based on the specific facts and defendant characteristics observed during trial. The decision highlights the tension between the Guidelines' goal of sentencing uniformity and the § 3553(a) factors' call for individualized justice. It provides a strong precedent for downward variances in cases involving elderly or severely infirm defendants, particularly in the white-collar context where judges may question the marginal deterrent effect of long prison sentences.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Brewer