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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
: CRIMINAL NO.: 07-CR-274 (RJL)
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.
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,
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
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.
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,
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.
Case 1:07-cr-00274-RJL Document 46 Filed 09/13/13 Page 5 of 5
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
RONALD C. MACHEN JR.
United States Attorney
For the District of Columbia
DAVID A. LAST
Assistant United States Attorney
Fraud and Public Corruption Section
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530