Articles Posted in Federal Sentencing

Published on:

by

In this appeal Mathews Martinez appeals his 60 month sentence for his conviction for intentionally causing damage to a protected computer of the Department of Veterans Affairs and resulted in the modification and impairment of the medical care of an individual and for knowing altering ad making a false entry in date stored within the Department’s computer system with the intent to impede obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter within the Department’s jurisdiction. Mathews was a nurse in the surgical intensive care unit of the VA hospital who did not record the changes in the patient’s vital signs during his stay in intensive care following heart surgery. Later the patient died of heart failure. When Matthews returned to work, he was confronted about the patient’s care. Knowing there would be an investigation, he went back into the patient’s records and entered numbers and notations.

Mathews challenged his enhanced sentence the court found that he did alter a substantial number of records and he altered essential and probative records. The court also enhanced his sentence because his victim was vulnerable and Mathews was in charge of the patient’s care. The court also determined that he tested positive for cocaine while on bond and found that it lacked any authority to grant him acceptance of responsibility reduction in his guidelines. The court ultimately found the guidelines range was insufficient and varied upward to a 60 month sentence.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Presendieu and Jean were indicted on bank fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft for participating in a check cashing scheme where they cashed fraudulent checks at Kwik Stop Food Store owned by Habib. Presendieu pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349 and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A. As part of his guilty plea Presendieu signed a seven page detailed Factual Proffer in Support of Guilty Plea admitting his participation in Habib’s illicit check cashing services by cashing stolen checks with forged endorsements and using false identification documents to cash them. He then entered his guilty plea colloquy pursuant to Rule 11.

In his appeal Presendieu complains that his guilty plea was procedurally defective and unconstitutional because the district court failed to inform him of the nature of the charges, never outlined separately each element of his two offenses, and never asked him whether he understood those elements. He did not raise these objections before the district court and raised them for the first time in his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appellate court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error under Rule 11 or under the constitution in accepting Presendieu’s guilty plea. It found that Presendieu was aware of the charges to which he plead guilty, he was sufficiently intelligent to understand the nature of those charges, he understood that the facts set forth in the factual proffer established that he was guilty of those two particular offenses, he had discussed the two charges and the facts in the proffer with his attorney, and he intelligently pled guilty to both charges in the plea agreement.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

George appealed his 259 month sentence imposed after a jury trial resulted in his conviction for conspiracy to engage in drug distribution, Hobbs act robbery, possession of unauthorized access devises, and aggravated identity theft activities. He was acquitted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

The facts in George’s case began when responded to an advertisement for luxury car rentals and met Pinkow, the owner. Unbeknownst to George, Pinkow, the owner of the car rental company was an informant for the FBI. Pinkow introduced George to Velez, a licensed barber because George expressed and interest in opening a barber salon. The salon did open and was divided into two rooms. The front room contained the barber shop and the back room contained computers, phones, embossing machines, card-scanning machines and items that had nothing to do with the barber business operating in the front room. George also kept a firearm at the front of the salon. Pinkow also rented luxury cars to a man named Banner, a successful drug dealer specializing in marijuana. Pinkow was present when Banner brought duffle bags filled with marijuana to George’s apartment and sold it to George. There was a subsequent sale to George for an amount that exceeded personal use.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

George appealed his 259 month sentence imposed after a jury trial resulted in his conviction for conspiracy to engage in drug distribution, Hobbs act robbery, possession of unauthorized access devises, and aggravated identity theft activities. He was acquitted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

The facts in George’s case began when responded to an advertisement for luxury car rentals and met Pinkow, the owner. Unbeknownst to George, Pinkow, the owner of the car rental company was an informant for the FBI. Pinkow introduced George to Velez, a licensed barber because George expressed and interest in opening a barber salon. The salon did open and was divided into two rooms. The front room contained the barber shop and the back room contained computers, phones, embossing machines, card-scanning machines and items that had nothing to do with the barber business operating in the front room. George also kept a firearm at the front of the salon.

Pinkow also rented luxury cars to a man named Banner, a successful drug dealer specializing in marijuana. Pinkow was present when Banner brought duffle bags filled with marijuana to George’s apartment and sold it to George. There was a subsequent sale to George for an amount that exceeded personal use.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Sami Osmakac was convicted and sentenced to 42 years in prison following a 10-day trial for attempting to carry out a terrorist plot in Tampa, Florida, and for possessing a firearm not registered to him. After the F.B.I. received a tip from a confidential informant a store owner selling trinkets and food items from the Middle East, reported that Osmakac asked about purchasing black flags referring to flags used by a variety of Islamist political movements, the store owner became a confidential source of information after gave Osmakac a job in his store. The F.B.I. began recording numerous conversations in which Osmakac discussed his plans to commit a several violent terrorist attacks in the Tampa area. Osmakac also made attempts to obtain guns from various individuals. Osmakac was charged in a two count indictment with committing one count of knowingly attempting to use weapons of mass destruction, specifically explosives grenades and similar devices in violation of 18 USC 2332 and with possessing a firearm not register to him ,specifically a AK-47 machine gun in violation of 26 USC 5861(d).

Prior to trial, the government informed Osmakac it planned to offer evidence of information obtained from electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the time that Osmakac was being observed. Osmakac filed a motion asking the trial court to order the government to disclose certain FISA materials including the underlying search warrant applications and orders issued by the FISA Court. The district court reviewed the requested materials, in camera and ex parte, and determined that there was no valid or legal reason for disclosing any of the FIA materials. Osmakac challenged the district court’s decision denying him access to the FISA applications and supporting documents and the FISA Court’s order authorizing the surveillance of Osmakac, who was a U.S. citizen. Osmakac argued that he wanted to review the applications and orders to determine whether the surveillance and searches were in fact legal.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In U.S. v Wright the defendant Wright pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft by filing fraudulent tax returns in the name of identity theft victims in order to obtain the refunds in violation of 18 USC §1349 and possessing 15 or more counterfeit and unauthorized access devised with the intent to defrauds in violation of 18 USC §1029. Other counts involved possession of names and social security number of five different people. The factual proffer of the plea agreement revealed that the IRS discovered fraudulent returns coming from the same Interne Protocol (IP) address what turned out to belong to a Florida apartment that was rented by Wright. The IRS agents executed a search warrant at the apartment where they found person identifying information PII for thousands of people in a number of places in the apartment. After seizing and analyzing the documents, the IRS determined there were 12,124 identities, 331 debit of credit cards containing account information and 2,090 identities found on the computers and flash drive.

The district court sentenced Wright to 84 months. Because the intended loss on all the tax returns totaled $868,472 plus an additional $6,905,500 representing $500 for each of the 13,811 remaining compromised identities found in the apartment. The issue on appeal was whether the loss amount calculated for determining Wright’s sentencing should the $500 amount for each of the remaining 13,811 compromised identities. The appeals court refined the issued by asking whether the 13,311 compromised identities qualified as “access devises” under any part of the definition for access devices as given in the sentencing guidelines. While the court of appeals found the 331 debit or credit cards and numerous social security number are access devises, the question became whether the other thousands of compromised identities which were described only as “personal identifying information.”

Continue reading

Published on:

by

 

David Ryan Alberts was sentenced to 120 months after pleading to receiving and possessing child pornography. Albers was arrested after F.B.I. agents in Orlando Florida went to Albert’s home and where he admitted accessing and receiving and possessing child pornography as long as 15 years ago. They discovered over 160 images on his thumb drive. Albert also admitted having engaged in sexual acts with his younger relatives on different occasions when they were under the age of 12 and when he was approximately 16 years old. The PSR also said that he admitted to searching for images depicting incest and law enforcement agents found numerous incest related stories on his thumb drive. Based on his teenage sex acts with his younger relatives, the PSR assessed a five-level increase to his offense level under section 2G2.2(b)(5) of the guidelines for engaging in a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.   This gave him a range of 135-168 months. At his sentencing, he challenged the application of this enhancement though he did not challenge the factual accuracy of this history. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for downward departure and imposed a sentence of 120 months.

Albert challenged the five-level enhancement his sentence on several grounds. First, he argued that the government did not produce sufficient evidence to justify the enhancement. But the court concluded that Alberts did not object at sentencing to the statements in the PSR regarding his past sexual activity. Furthermore, his admissions were corroborated by his long-standing preoccupation with incest and pedophilia. Therefor the appellate court found the district courts findings of fact regarding the enhancement were not erroneous.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendant Freeman Jockisch was indicted and convicted of a violation 18 USC §2422(b) which prohibits the use of the Internet to attempt to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity. The indictment alleged he tried to commit rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, and sexual abuse in the second degree. The indictment listed three sexual offenses under Alabama statutes, which had Jockisch consummated with the minor, would have resulted in criminal charges under Alabama state law or federal law.  Jockish is a former Mobile County, Alabam Commissioner.

The defendant began an email correspondence with someone he believed to be a 15-year old girl on Craigslist and said multiple times during his emails that he wanted to make love to the young woman. Eventually they agreed to meet and when the defendant arrived at the address and time she provided, he only found police officers waiting for him.

The district court turned down a defense instructed instruction and instead instructed the jury that it only had to unanimously find the defendant knowingly used the internet to attempt to persuade the minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity and that if the sexual activity had occurred the defendant could have been charge with a criminal offense under the laws of Alabama.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

 

Doyle pled guilty to distribution of more than fifty grams of cocaine bade and was facing a 10 year minimum sentence and up to live imprisonment. After calculating his advisory guidelines rant of 262 to 327 at sentencing the district court asked his counsel if she had anything to say before the sentence was imposed and she used the opportunity to argue successfully for a sentence at the low end of the advisory guidelines range. The court did not ask Doyle himself if he wished to make a statement or to allocate as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doyle’s counsel did not object. Doyle later filed a pro se motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2244 claiming that he had asked his former counsel to file a direct appeal but that she had failed to do so. The district court granted his 2255 motion with respect to his failure to appeal claim and the court ordered the remedy spelled out in U. S. v. Phillips, which requires vacating the original sentence and resentencing him to the same sentence as before, so it can be reviewed on appeal. It does not reopen the sentencing. The same sentence as before was imposed.

The sole issue for the appellate court was whether Doyle’s sentence must be vacated because his right to give allocution, as embodied in the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 was violated. In the pre-Booker era, the court of appeals presumed prejudice from the district court’s failure to ask a defendant if he had anything to say before sentence was pronounced, except where the defendant was sentenced at the low end of the applicable mandatory guideline range. The question here is whether that low-end exception to a presumption of prejudice still applies in the post-Booker advisory guideline era.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

 

In U.S. v. Osman, the defendant appealed his restitution order following his guilty plea to one count of production of child pornography, one count of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. On six occasions Osman sexually abused an molested his approximately one-year-old daughter and used his cell phone to photograph his sexual abuse. He sent some of the child pornography images he had created to another individual in exchange for other child pornography images. When Department of Homeland Security executed a search warrant at Osman’s residence he admitted to using the internet to search or child pornography. A forensic examination of his electronic services revealed at least 94 movies and 588 images of child pornography that included his daughter.

After a grand jury indicted him with possession, production, and distribution of child pornography. As part of his plea he agreed to make full restitution to his daughter under the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act 18 U.S C. 2259.

At the restitution hearing Osman argued the government’s estimate of A.E.’s future counseling needs was speculative given her very young age. The government’s position was that any estimate of damages and further counseling needs would be speculative to some extend in a case involving an infant victim but nevertheless asserted restitution was appropriate. The government used a licensed counselor who specialized with child victims of sexual abuse and testified about her experience involving victims of child sexual abuse and working with children at various developmental stages. She acknowledged her estimate about A.E.’s future need would be based on prediction about the care she would likely need and was in some sense speculative but her opinion was based on many years of research about the consequences of early adverse life events and her extensive experience counseling victims of abuse.

Continue reading