1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-CR-20224-BB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

vs.

ALAN LI, 

 Defendant.

_____________________________________/ 

DEFENDANT ALAN LI’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Defendant Alan Li, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this 

Sentencing Memorandum, and states: 

INTRODUCTION

On January 12, 2023, Mr. Li will appear before this Court for sentencing.1 Mr. Li 

understands the gravity of his crime. He fully appreciates that a substantial prison term is warranted 

and welcomes the opportunity to receive all treatment available to him. Prior to his incarceration, 

Mr. Li devoted his adult life to helping others. He is intent on redeeming himself. The purpose of 

this Sentencing Memorandum is only to ask this Court to impose a minimum term of supervised 

release with more limited conditions than what probation has recommended. Mr. Li also requests

the statutory 10-year minimum prison sentence. 

DISCUSSION

I. The nature and circumstances of the offense 

Over the course of a two-month period between March 12 and May 12, 2022, Mr. Li (who 

had otherwise led an exemplary life) exchanged a series of text messages with an undercover agent 

1 On October 27, 2022, Mr. Li pled guilty to Count 2 of the government’s indictment, which charged him with 

Attempted Coercion and Enticement of a Minor to Engage in Sexual Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 1 of 11
2

posing as a “trafficker.” In these messages, Mr. Li inquired about sex with minor girls in the Miami 

area. Mr. Li also discussed pricing with the agent, though no payment was ever made. On April

12, 2022, Mr. Li agreed to meet the undercover agent at a Five Guys in Miami Beach, Florida, 

after which he was told he could meet the minor female. He was asked to bring candy to make the 

minor female feel more comfortable. Ultimately, Mr. Li did not show up as scheduled, but 

continued to chat with the agent about another meet up. On May 2, 2022, Mr. Li again agreed to 

meet the undercover agent at a designated location in Broward County, but again did not show up. 

Mr. Li had no further communication with the agent after this date. On May 12, 2022, Mr. Li was 

arrested. 

While Mr. Li did not actually show up to any meeting, he fully recognizes that under the 

law of the Eleventh Circuit his conduct constitutes a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Mr. Li is 

acutely aware of his deplorable actions and knows that his future is forever altered. He will never 

be able to practice medicine, which has been his lifelong dream, and he will always be labeled a 

sex offender. To say that he profoundly regrets what he has done would be an understatement. 

II. Mr. Li’s history, characteristics, and family circumstances

Mr. Li is not a bad man. He is a good man who simply needs help. As the letters of support 

attached as Exhibit A to this memorandum show, Mr. Li has loving, supportive parents and a 

brother who will be there for him every step of the way and upon his release. For as long as he can 

remember, Mr. Li wanted to be a doctor so that he could commit his life to helping others. In Mr. 

Li’s eyes, he has already received the greatest punishment of all: because of his conviction, he will 

never practice medicine again. At the young age of 27 with his career only just getting started, this 

is an agonizing pill for him to swallow. 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 2 of 11
3

Prior to his arrest, Mr. Li had no involvement with law enforcement. As a child and young 

adult, he was a model student. He rarely drank alcohol and never did any hard drugs, instead 

dedicating himself to his studies and his goal of becoming a doctor. After graduating valedictorian 

of his high school class in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. Li went on to excel at the University of Miami, 

where he was the sole recipient of the academic achievement award from the Chemistry

Department at graduation. From there, Mr. Li graduated at the top of his medical school class at 

the University of Virginia, and thereafter worked as an emergency medicine doctor at the Mount 

Sinai Medical Center in Miami, Florida. In the 10 short months he was there prior to his arrest, 

Mr. Li was twice recognized by the Emergency Department for his outstanding service to patients. 

As his friends and family all attest, Mr. Li is deeply remorseful for what he has done and 

eager to redeem himself. They describe Mr. Li as extremely bright, responsible, dependable, 

altruistic, and someone they look up to. He is the person who is always there to help others, no 

matter how busy he is. As one friend put it, “I couldn’t ask for a more selfless friend.” See Letter 

from Brendan McBreen (Dec. 17, 2022). In their letter, Mr. Li’s parents quoted from several emails 

that Mr. Li sent them from prison. In the emails, Mr. Li stated that he “will work every day for the 

rest of [his] life towards being a better man,” and that, while he can no longer help people as a 

doctor anymore, he “hope[s] someday [he] can make a positive impact on people’s lives again.” 

See Letter from Kevin Li and Jinbo Hu (Dec. 4, 2022). 

As a man of science, Mr. Li knows that as part of his sentence and rehabilitation he will 

have the opportunity to receive mental health counseling and treatment, and he will do whatever 

it takes to get better, embracing this opportunity. Although being a doctor is no longer in the cards 

for him, he has the education and skillset to be able to contribute to society in other ways, such as 

through medical research. Given Mr. Li’s young age, at the time of his release, he will still have 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 3 of 11
4

an entire life ahead of him to make a tremendous impact. The more limitations that are placed on 

Mr. Li upon his release from prison, however, the less likely it is that he will be able to do so.

III. The Proposed Sentence

Mr. Li’s offense has a statutory 10-year minimum prison sentence, which Mr. Li 

respectfully requests that this Court should impose a sentence no greater than. Mr. Li’s sentence 

also requires a minimum five-year term of supervised release, with a maximum term of life.

2 For 

someone who is still in their twenties, the difference between five years and life is extraordinary.

Mr. Li is respectfully asking the Court to impose a five-year term of supervised release.

A survey of the cases involving 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) in the Southern District of Florida 

reveal that lifetime supervised release is reserved for only the most egregious conduct, far beyond 

the facts of Mr. Li’s crime. Aris Gungormez and Joseph Meahl, for example, were both already 

registered and convicted sex offenders. See Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Gungormez, No. 18-

cr-60100 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2018), ECF No. 18 and Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Meahl, No. 

16-cr-60104 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2016), ECF No. 23. Other cases where lifetime terms of 

supervised release were ordered include: 

• Andres Camilo Ruiz pretended to be a 12-year-old female on a messaging application, 

sent numerous minor victims child pornography including videos of minor females 

inserting objects into their genitals, and used this as a way to persuade the victims to 

send him similar videos. Ruiz then traded the victims’ videos with others. See Corrected 

Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Ruiz, No. 19-cr-60223 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2021), ECF 

No. 87.

• Henry Alvarez Flores engaged in explicit internet communications with three minor 

male victims under age 14, persuaded each victim to send videos and pictures of 

themselves masturbating, and sent them gifts in exchange. Flores also persuaded one 

of the victims to send pictures and videos of himself inserting an object into his anus, 

also in exchange for a gift. See Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Flores, No. 18-cr60240 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2019), ECF No. 45. 

2 The Presentence Investigation Report also notes that the Court may impose a maximum fine of $250,000. Given Mr. 

Li’s financial circumstances and limited assets, he asks this Court not to impose any fine beyond what is statutorily 

required. 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 4 of 11
5

• Brian Wayne Schmuhl sent very sexually graphic messages to a 16-year-old female 

and persuaded her to send him pornographic images and videos of herself masturbating 

and displaying her genitalia. After the female’s grandmother reported this activity to 

the police, law enforcement intervened and messaged Schmuhl in an undercover 

capacity, posing as a 12-year-old female. Schmuhl proceeded to send the undercover 

agent similarly sexually graphic messages, as well as images of his genitalia and other 

pornographic images and videos. In addition, he requested that she send him photos of 

her vagina. See Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Schmuhl, No. 20-cr-60009 (S.D. Fla. 

June 30, 2020), ECF No. 25. 

It goes without saying that the severity of Mr. Li’s actions does not rise even close to the

level of any of these cases. The conduct of defendants who received a five-year term of supervised 

release, on the other hand, is much more on par (if not worse) with that of Mr. Li. Some examples 

of Defendants who were given a five-year supervised release term include:

• Byron McCormick exchanged over 700 chat communications with an undercover agent 

posing as the father of a 10-year-old minor female. McCormick expressed interest in 

having sexual relations with the minor, and agreed to pay $100 in exchange. The agent 

also spoke with McCormick posing as the minor on several occasions. McCormick 

discussed with the minor the specific sexual activity he wanted her to engage in and 

sent photographs of his erect penis. Eventually, McCormick and the agent agreed to 

meet at a restaurant to exchange money, after which they would go to a hotel for the 

sexual encounter. Unlike in Mr. Li’s case, McCormick showed up to the restaurant 

and gave money to the agent before being arrested. See Factual Proffer Statement, 

U.S. v. McCormick, No. 17-cr-60091 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2017), ECF No. 17. 

• Sergio Maldonado exchanged a series of messages with an undercover agent posing as 

a 15-year-old girl named Rachel. Maldonado told Rachel that he would give her two 

Xanax pills in exchange for sex. He also offered to buy her a cellular phone in exchange 

for sex on a monthly basis. The two agreed to meet at a fitness center. Unlike in Mr. 

Li’s case, Maldonado showed up at the fitness center before being arrested. See 

Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Maldonado, No. 16-cr-60002 (S.D. Fla. March 22, 

2016), ECF No. 29. 

• Charles Thomas Smith posted an ad on Craigslist stating that he was seeking a sexually 

submissive girl. The ad also displayed a picture of an adult erect penis and contained a 

graphic description of the sexual activity being solicited. A detective responded to the 

ad posing as a 15-year-old girl. Smith explicitly described the sexual activity he was 

seeking. He told her that he was “clean,” always used protection, and would buy more 

for when they met. Smith agreed to pick her up the following morning at her house 

after her mom left for work. Again, unlike in Mr. Li’s case, Smith was arrested only 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 5 of 11
6 

after he arrived at the location. See Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Smith, No. 11-

cr-80104 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2011), ECF No. 40. 

• Jorge Muentes paid a deposit for sexual services with both a minor and an adult female 

located in San Jose, Costa Rica, and purchased a plane ticket from Miami to San Jose 

to meet them at a hotel there. Following a jury trial, Muentes was found guilty and 

sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with five years of supervised release. Unlike Mr. 

Li, Muentes paid a deposit, purchased a flight, and, rather than accept responsibility 

for his actions, elected to take his case to trial. See Complaint and Judgment, U.S. v. 

Muentes, No. 07-cr-20994 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2007 and May 30, 2008), ECF Nos. 1; 

79. 

While Mr. Li’s conduct was severe and criminal, in some ways, it was less severe than the 

above defendants who received a five-year supervised release term. Broadly speaking, in nearly 

all instances, defendants charged and convicted under § 2422(b) in the Eleventh Circuit, including 

the above defendants, will either (1) show up to a meeting location proposed by an undercover 

agent, often with condoms; (2) purchase a gift such as a teddy bear or candy to give to the minor; 

and/or (3) pay a “deposit” to the undercover agent.3 See, e.g., U.S. v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181 (11th 

Cir. 2019) (Defendant drove to meet undercover agent posing as the parent of fictitious 11-yearold daughter, in anticipation of engaging in sexual activity with daughter after meeting agent, 

requested that the daughter be wearing a particular outfit without underwear, and had an abundance 

of prepubescent images and internet search terms on his computer); U.S. v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 

(11th Cir. 2004) (Defendant made an online deal with a purported adult father to have sex with the 

father's minor daughter, traveled to another county to meet the purported daughter for sex in

3 Even in those cases before this Court where Your Honor imposed a 10-year term of supervised release, unlike Mr. 

Li, the Defendants all showed up to a meeting location, among other things. See Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. 

Lugo, No. 22-cr-20033 (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2022), ECF No. 24 (Defendant showed up at designated meeting location 

with a $200 payment and two Happy Meals to give to minor female); Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Toribio, No. 

19-cr-60255 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2019), ECF. No. 21 (Defendant showed up at designated meeting location and sent 

images to undercover agent via text message indicating he had purchased condoms and lube); Factual Proffer 

Statement, U.S. v. Blake, No. 15-cr-80018 (S.D. Fla. March 31, 2015), ECF No. 28 (Defendant showed up at 

designated meeting location proposed by undercover agent); Factual Proffer Statement, U.S. v. Wells, No. 14-cr-60295 

(S.D. Fla. May 13, 2015), ECF No. 49 (Defendant showed up at designated meeting location proposed by undercover 

agent; Defendant had also previously met with minor victim before victim’s parents reported incident to police and 

law enforcement took over). 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 6 of 11
7 

exchange for money, and was carrying a teddy bear, $300 in cash, and a box of condoms when he

arrived). 

Make no mistake, Mr. Li admits that the content of his discussions with the agent and his 

efforts to solicit sexual activity with a minor-aged female were unquestionably criminal. Unlike 

the vast majority of other Defendants, however, Mr. Li did not show up, did not purchase a gift, 

and did not pay a deposit.4 While this certainly does not diminish the seriousness of what Mr. Li 

has done, it does make his case unique. It is Mr. Li’s hope that this Court takes these distinguishing 

factors and his personal characteristics and history into account and affords him a more limited 

five-year supervised release term. 

IV. Several of the Presentence Investigation Report’s recommended supervised release 

conditions are disproportionate to Mr. Li’s offense

“To be valid, a special condition of supervised release must (1) be reasonably related to a 

statutory sentencing factor; (2) involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably 

necessary for the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C § 3553(a); and (3) be consistent with any pertinent 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” U.S. v. Coglianese, 34 F.4th 1002, 1010 

(11th Cir. 2022) (citing U.S. v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1089 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations 

omitted)). In deciding whether to impose a condition of supervised release, the district court “must 

consider defendant's history and characteristics, provide both adequate punishment and 

rehabilitation of defendant, and protect society at large.” Id. (citations omitted). 

4 Indeed, outside of the 11th Circuit, some courts have held that, absent a defendant showing up at a meeting point or 

taking other preparatory steps such as making a hotel reservation, purchasing a gift, or buying a bus or train ticket, a 

defendant cannot be said to have taken a substantial step towards engaging in sexual activity with a minor. See U.S. 

v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[t]reating speech (even obscene speech) as the ‘substantial step’ would 

abolish any requirement of a substantial step . . . [and would not] distinguish people who pose real threats from those 

who are all hot air . . . .”). 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 7 of 11
8 

The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) recommends certain conditions of 

supervised release. (ECF No. 34). As discussed below, several of these conditions are unrelated 

to Mr. Li’s offense and/or impose a greater deprivation of Mr. Li’s liberty than is reasonably 

necessary. In turn, Mr. Li is respectfully asking that these terms be modified. 

a. Computer Possession Restriction. The PSI suggests that Mr. Li should not be 

permitted to possess or use a computer during his supervised release term except in connection 

with authorized employment, provided that he obtains approval from the Court. Technological 

advancement is only moving forward. Mr. Li is being asked to submit to these terms and conditions 

in the present, even though they will not be imposed for around another decade, at a time when 

our understanding of what a computer is could be markedly different than what it is today. 5 

While some courts including this one6 have held that a cellular phone meets the statutory 

definition of a computer under the Sentencing Guidelines, here, Mr. Li did not post any online 

advertisements. He did not utilize online blogs, chatrooms, or social media websites to solicit 

minors. He did not use the dark web. He did not exchange or consume child pornography. Rather, 

he directly messaged an undercover agent about being set up with minor-aged females. The types 

of threats to minors that are conventionally associated with computer use were simply not present 

in Mr. Li’s case. 

Paragraph 99 of the PSI provides that Mr. Li may be subject to the installation on his 

computer of hardware or software systems that monitor his computer use. This is a much more 

reasonable and proportionate punishment that appreciates that computer use is already so 

engrained in our society (and likely will only become more engrained after Mr. Li’s sentence) that 

5 Relatedly, the PSI recommends that Mr. Li be prohibited from possessing or using any data encryption program. 

While Mr. Li does not take issue with this recommendation, he asks that he be permitted to use certain data encryption 

programs with court approval, should this be necessary in the future. 

6 See Paperless Order Denying Motion to Vacate, U.S. v. Touizer, 17-cr-60286 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2023), ECF No. 302.

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 8 of 11
9

an outright prohibition would be nearly impossible. In turn, Mr. Li is asking this Court to remove 

the computer use restriction and to instead require him to install a system that will allow his 

computer use to be monitored. 

b. Restriction from Possession of Sexual Materials. The PSI is also seeking to 

prohibit Mr. Li from possessing sexually explicit materials, which includes possession of any 

visual depictions of adults engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Mr. Li’s offense did not involve 

the possession or exchange of sexually explicit materials. Therefore, a restriction this broad is 

unnecessary and disproportionate. Mr. Li asks that this this condition not be included in his 

supervised release terms. 

c. No contact with minors. There is nothing that Mr. Li can do to take back what he 

did. And he will suffer the consequences of his actions for the remainder of his life as a registered 

sex offender. But prohibiting Mr. Li from communicating with minors for any reason whatsoever 

places him in an impossible position that will isolate him from the family and friends who are 

committed to supporting him. Both the federal and state sex offender registry systems have 

restrictions and safeguards in place to limit sex offender communication with minors. If a 

defendant takes any action that runs afoul of these restrictions, there are severe consequences. Mr. 

Li submits that the federal and state offender registries will impose a sufficient deprivation of 

liberty in this regard, and asks that the Court not include probation’s recommendation as part of 

his supervised release terms.

d. Self-employment restriction. Lastly, as already discussed, there is no question that 

Mr. Li is a highly bright and motivated individual. A restriction on self-employment except if 

Court permitted imposes a burdensome limitation on Mr. Li’s job prospects. There is no indication 

that Mr. Li ever engaged in the type of business that probation is aiming to prevent through this 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 9 of 11
10 

restriction—i.e., business that bears some relation to trafficking or producing sexually explicit 

material. Mr. Li asks that this Court not include a restriction on self-employment as a term of his 

supervised release in order to afford him the best chance to contribute to society. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Li accepts full responsibility for his actions. He recognizes that he has forever altered 

an otherwise exemplary life with a promising future. He knows that he has much work to be done 

in order to again positively contribute to society. Acknowledging that, for the reasons set forth in 

this memorandum, Defendant Alan Li respectfully requests that this Court impose a ten-year term 

of incarceration, and a five-year term of supervised release with conditions consistent with the 

above.

/s/ Daniel L. Rashbaum

Daniel L. Rashbaum

Fla Bar No. 75084

Julie Levine

Fla Bar No. 1007991

MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM &

PINEIRO LLP

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2530

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 400-4261

Fax: 866-780-8355

drashbaum@mnrlawfirm.com

jlevine@mnrlawfirm.com

Counsel for Alan Li

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 10 of 11
11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was filed with 

the Clerk of the Court and all parties of record, via CM/ECF on January 9, 2023 

/s/ Daniel L. Rashbaum 

 Daniel L. Rashbaum 

Case 1:22-cr-20224-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 11 of 11