Farmer v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Crim. Action No. RDB-17-0451,Civ. Action No. RDB-18-2336 |
| Parties | DEE DEIDRE FARMER Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
On December 21, 2017, pro se Petitioner Dee Deidre Farmer ("Farmer" or "Petitioner") pled guilty to two Counts in a three-Count Indictment: theft of government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 (Count One) and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) (Count Three). (Plea Agreement, ECF No. 29; Judgment, ECF No. 31.) Farmer had entered her guilty plea in accordance with a plea agreement. (ECF No. 29.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed on a total sentence of 36 months (three years) of imprisonment. On that same day, the Honorable Marvin J. Garbis of this Court1 accepted the parties' plea agreement and sentenced Petitioner to a total term of imprisonment of three years followed by two years of supervised release. (ECF No. 29; Judgment, ECF No. 31.)
Petitioner has filed ten motions seeking miscellaneous forms of post-conviction relief. Currently pending are Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Judgment and Commitment (ECFNo. 36); a Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Probation Office for the District of Maryland to Supplement the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) with the Defendant's Substance Abuse History (ECF No. 37) ("Motion to Supplement the Presentence Investigation Report"); a Motion to Expedite this Court Acting on Defendant's Pending Motion to Amend the Judgment and Commitment and Defendant's Motion for an Order Directing the Probation Office to Supplement its Report (ECF No. 38) ("Motion to Expedite"); a Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 39); Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 47) ("Motion to Vacate"); several Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 50, 64, 65, 66); and a letter requesting "partial summary judgment" (ECF No. 68) ("Motion for Summary Judgment").
The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Judgment and Commitment (ECF No. 36) is DENIED; Motion to Supplement the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 37) is DENIED; Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 38) is DENIED; Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 39) is DENIED; Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 47) is DENIED; Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68) is DENIED; and Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 50, 64, 65, 66) are DENIED.
Farmer stipulated to the following facts in her Plea Agreement. (ECF No. 29.) From November 2011 until August 2017, Farmer used the identity of George Seward, a prisoner,2 to receive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") program benefits. (Id. at 8.) On November 4, 2011, Farmer fraudulently obtained a Maryland Driver's license under Seward's name. (Id.) On December 12, 2011, Farmer used Seward's name, date of birth, and social security number to apply for SSI benefits based on blindness and AIDS.3 (Id.) The Social Security Administration denied that initial benefit claim. (Id.)
Farmer's initial denial of benefits did not deter her. On April 17, 2012, Farmer again used Seward's personal information to submit another application for SSI benefits claiming disability based on blindness and AIDS. (Id. at 9.) In support of her application, Seward created and submitted fake medical reports which purported to be from Seward's treatment providers. (Id.) On that same day, Farmer opened a Bank of America account in Seward's name at a branch location at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, where the Petitioner was receiving treatment. (Id.) This time, the Social Security Administration approved the application. (Id.) On May 1, 2012, Farmer started to receive benefits underSeward's identity. (Id.) Those benefits were deposited into the Bank of America account that Petitioner had previously opened using Steward's identity, and direct deposit was established.
This was not Petitioner's only fraudulent scheme. In March 2012, Petitioner sent a forged court subpoena to Experian Credit Agency in an attempt to obtain personal and financial information associated with 37 individuals. Farmer v. United States, No. 12-CR-758, 2016 WL 1276461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016), reconsideration denied, No. 12-CR-758, 2017 WL 3448014 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017). On September 12, 2013, she pled guilty to a superseding indictment arising from that scheme in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Id. Specifically, Farmer pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505; and three counts of aggravated identity theft in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Id. Despite imprisonment in New York, Farmer continued to receive SSI benefits under Seward's name through direct deposit in the Bank of America account that she opened in Maryland. (Id.)
On August 23, 2017, the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland issued the Indictment in this case charging her with theft of government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Count One), social security account number fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (Count Two), and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Count Three). (ECF No. 23.)
On December 15, 2017, Farmer entered into a plea agreement with the Government. (Plea Agreement, ECF No. 29.) Farmer agreed to plead guilty to Counts One and Three of the Indictment, which charged her with theft of government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Count One) and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Count Three). (Id. ¶ 1.) The agreement contained stipulations with respect to the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. As to Count One, the parties agreed that an adjusted offense level of 13 was appropriate, based in part on a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. (Id. ¶ 6(d), (f).) As to Count Three, the parties agreed that a mandatory consecutive minimum sentence of two years applied. (Id. ¶ 6(g).) The parties further stipulated that Petitioner had a criminal history category of VI under the Sentencing Table. (Id. ¶ 6(h).) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed that a total sentence of 36 months in the custody of Bureau of Prisons (12 months as to Count One and 24 months as to Count Three, to be served consecutively) was the appropriate disposition of the case. (Id. ¶ 7.) In exchange for her guilty plea as to Counts One and Three, the Government agreed to dismiss Count Two. (Id. ¶ 9.)
On December 21, 2017, Farmer pled guilty to Counts One and Three and not guilty to Count Two. During the Rule 11 Plea Colloquy, Farmer expressed satisfaction with her counsel, James Wyda,4 and an understanding of the plea agreement. Farmer agreed with her counsel's assessment that she understood the ramifications of pleading guilty and that she pledguilty because she believed it was "in her best interest" to do so. (12/21/2017 Hr'g Tr. 6:18-24, ECF No. 54.) Farmer described the legal assistance she received from her counsel as "excellent." (Id. at 11:9-11.) She acknowledged that she was giving up certain rights by pleading guilty, including the right to call witnesses, to testify, and to appeal a guilty verdict. (Id. at 12:19-13:15.) Farmer indicated that she understood that she had stipulated to a 36-month sentence. (Id. at 20:8-11.) Finally, Farmer admitted that she did, in fact, commit the crimes to which she was pleading guilty. (Id. at 20:23-25.)
Immediately following the re-arraignment, Farmer's counsel moved to commence sentencing proceedings and to waive the preparation of a presentence investigation report. (Id. at 27:17-22.) Farmer personally informed the Court that she wished to proceed immediately to sentencing even after this Court informed her that sentencing could be delayed and a presentence investigation report prepared. (Id. at 27:23-28:3.) Judge Marvin J. Garbis of this Court granted the Government's motion and proceeded to sentencing, reasoning that the parties had entered into a "(C)" plea and that the record contained sufficient information about the defendant, including her health issues. (Id. at 29:5-10.) Ultimately, after considering the applicable Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months imprisonment, this Court sentenced Petitioner to the agreed three years of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. (Plea Agreement, ECF No. 29; Judgment, ECF No. 31.) This Court remarked that Farmer's sentence was "extraordinarily light" given the nature of her crimes, but neverthelessdetermined that it was appropriate after taking into account her deteriorating health.5 (Id. at 30:23-31:6.)
Consistent with the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea entered in this case, Petitioner did not appeal her sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. She has, however, since filed a number of motions in this Court seeking various forms of post-conviction relief. All of her claims are without merit. These motions are as follows: Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Judgment and Commitment (ECF No. 36); a Motion to Supplement the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 37); a Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 38); a Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 39); a Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 47); several Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 50, 64, 65, 66); and a Summary Judgment Motion (ECF No. 68).
This Court recognizes that the Petitioner is pro se and has accorded her pleadings liberal construction. S...
To continue reading
Request your trial