You're viewing Docket Item 46 from the case USA v. FRANKLIN-THROWER. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:07-cr-00274-RJL Document 46 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



















v.




:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:


: CRIMINAL NO.: 07-CR-274 (RJL)


:


:
RENITA FRANKLIN-THROWER,
:



:

___________________________________ :



Defendant.














GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

FOLLOWING REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

The United States of America, by and through its counsel, the United States Attorney for




the District of Columbia, hereby submits this memorandum in aid of sentencing following

revocation of the defendant’s supervised release. Under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, the

defendant faces a sentence of 3-9 months in prison at her sentencing hearing scheduled for

September 19, 2013. For the reasons noted herein, the government respectfully requests a term

of incarceration at the top of the applicable guidelines range, 9 months in prison.

BACKGROUND



The defendant was initially sentenced by the Court on June 19, 2008, relating to her

conviction for Obtaining Funds by Embezzlement From an Organization Receiving Federal Funds,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A). The Court imposed an initial sentence of four months in

prison, followed by 36 months of supervised release with various special conditions. Among the

special conditions imposed was a requirement that the defendant pay restitution in the amount of

$28,617.50, at a rate of $100 per month. On January 25, 2010, the Court issued an amended order

for criminal contempt and sentenced the defendant to an additional four months of incarceration,



1

Case 1:07-cr-00274-RJL Document 46 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 5

followed by three years of supervised release. The defendant’s supervised release commenced on

June 2, 2010, and was due to expire on June 1, 2013.



Over the course of her supervised release, the defendant engaged in multiple violations of

her supervision, including failures to notify U.S. Probation regarding re-arrest, failure to notify her

employer regarding the offense of conviction, failure to follow her probation officer’s instructions,

and failure to pay restitution. See U.S. Probation Office Petition (ECF No. 41), at 2-3. Indeed, in

the years she has been on supervision in this case, the defendant has made only three payments in

total towards her restitution -- $200 on September 30, 2011; $200 on November 8, 2011; and $400

on January 31, 2012. (ECF No. 41, at 6.) Of particular significance, the defendant has not made a

single payment towards her restitution since January 2012. Not a single dollar to demonstrate any

good-faith effort to pay her restitution and comply with her supervised release conditions in nearly

20 months. As a result, the defendant still owes an outstanding restitution amount of $27,817.50.



On April 11, 2013, the Court held a hearing on violation, during which the defendant

conceded to the violations regarding a failure to pay restitution since January 2012, and a failure to

notify U.S. Probation within 72 hours of a re-arrest. The Court revoked the defendant’s supervised

release and resentenced her to an additional two years of supervised release with the same

conditions originally imposed, including the requirement to pay $100 per month towards her

restitution. Based on the defendant’s representation regarding her ability to make a payment

towards her restitution before June 2013, the Court ordered the defendant to pay $900 prior to the

next hearing before the Court on May 23, 2013. At the time, the Court noted that it would be “one

last chance” for the defendant and that any violation would lead to incarceration.



At the time of the next hearing on May 23, 2013, the defendant failed to appear. According

to U.S. Probation, the defendant advised that she would not be present at the hearing due to a work



2

Case 1:07-cr-00274-RJL Document 46 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 5

commitment. U.S. Probation advised further that the defendant had not made any additional

restitution payments, as ordered by the Court. The Court found the defendant in violation of her

supervised release and issued a bench warrant for her arrest.



The Court held another hearing on September 4, 2013, at which the defendant initially

failed to appear. After the Court issued a bench warrant, the defendant appeared late, shortly

thereafter, and self-surrendered on the bench warrant. The Court thereafter revoked the

defendant’s supervised release based on the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms and

conditions of her supervised release, and scheduled sentencing for September 19, 2013.

ARGUMENT

The Court must impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the factors that must be considered in imposing sentence. In

addition to considering the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the United States

Sentencing Commission, the Court also must consider the need for the sentence imposed (i) to

reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just

punishment for the offense; (ii) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (iii) to protect

the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (iv) to provide the defendant with needed

educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most

effective manner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court also must consider the nature and

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the kinds of

sentences available. See id.

The Supreme Court has declared that, in terms of determining an appropriate sentence,

“[a]s a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the

starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49, 128 S. Ct. 586,



3

Case 1:07-cr-00274-RJL Document 46 Filed 09/13/13 Page 4 of 5

596 (2007) (“a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the

applicable Guidelines range”). Although advisory, the Guidelines assure some measure of

uniformity in sentencing, fulfilling a key Congressional goal in adopting the Sentencing Reform

Act of 1984. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that “district courts must begin their analysis

with the Guidelines and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process.” Gall, 128

S. Ct. at 597 n.6.

As noted by U.S. Probation, the applicable guidelines range with respect to the

incarceration aspect of sentencing following the defendant’s revocation of supervised release is 3

to 9 months in prison. (ECF No. 40, at 3.) The maximum statutory term of imprisonment upon

revocation of supervised release in this case is 24 months. (Id.)

In light of all of the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the facts at issue in this case,

and the defendant’s consistent and repeated failure to comply with her conditions of supervised

release, an appropriate sentence following revocation of the defendant’s supervised release is 9

months incarceration. As noted above, the defendant has engaged in repeated failures to comply

with her conditions of supervised release, including a complete failure to make any good faith

effort to pay her restitution. Other than three isolated payments at the end of 2011 and beginning

of 2012, the defendant has made no payments towards restitution.

The defendant also has shown a repeated disregard for the Court’s orders and demonstrated

outright disrespect to the Court in her failures to appear, and appear timely, for hearings and

failures to comply with court orders. The Court has afforded the defendant multiple opportunities

to come into compliance with her supervised release conditions and she has repeatedly neglected

to avail herself of those opportunities.





4

Case 1:07-cr-00274-RJL Document 46 Filed 09/13/13 Page 5 of 5

CONCLUSION



For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully recommends a sentence of 9 months

incarceration following the revocation of the defendant’s supervised release.




































DATED: September 13, 2013



















































Respectfully submitted,

RONALD C. MACHEN JR.
United States Attorney
For the District of Columbia

By:








_________ /s/____________________
DAVID A. LAST
Assistant United States Attorney
Fraud and Public Corruption Section
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
202.252-7020 (telephone)
[email protected] (email)



5