1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20201-06

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

v.

 

D-6 DEONTAY Q. McDONALD,

Defendant.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Defense Counsel

A. Tare Wigod Maria P. Mannarino P39531

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 431 Gratiot 

Detroit, MI 48226 Detroit, MI 48226

313-226-9191 248-761-7347

tare.wigod@usdoj.gov mmannarino@comcast.net

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION

In accordance to the Rule 11 Plea Agreement, Deontay McDonald, pled guilty to 

Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. This Indictment charged a 

Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The maximum term of 

imprisonment Mr. McDonald faces is life. A period of prelease can be imposed of up to 

five years. A maximum fine can be imposed of $250,000.00. 

The Rule 11 Plea Agreement provides that the parties have agreed that the 

advisory guideline range is 360 months to life. The parties have also agreed, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(c), that the sentence of imprisonment may 

not exceed 288 months (24 years) and may not be less than 228 months (19 years). 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1443 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 11
2

Should this Court accept the Rule 11 Plea Agreement, the government will dismiss all 

remaining charges.

Sentencing is scheduled for February 7, 2017 at 2:30.

Mr. McDonald respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum and requests 

that this Court impose a sentence which is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to 

comply with the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Advisory Sentence Guideline Range

As indicated in the Rule 11 Plea Agreement, the advisory guideline range agreed 

to and contemplated by the parties is 360 to life. The Probation Department has 

determined that the parties’ calculation is correct. See PSI, ¶ 7.

Legal Principals

In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), The Supreme Court held that the 

provisions of the Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 are no longer mandatory and 

are “merely advisory”. Thus, a district court must impose “a sentence sufficient, but not 

greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” See United 

States v. Foreman, 436 F.3d 638, at 642-643 (6th Cir. 2006).

18 U.S.C. §3553

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provides:

The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to 

comply with the purposes set forth in (2) of this subsection. In determining the particular 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1444 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 11
3

sentence to be imposed, the Court shall consider the following factors. These factors will 

be analyzed as applied to Mr. McDonald.

The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of 

the defendant. 

Mr. McDonald pled guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. 

This Indictment charged him with Racketeering Conspiracy. The factual basis for the 

plea was that in 2013, as a juvenile, Mr. McDonald was a member of Related Through 

Money (“RTM”), classified as a criminal street gang composed primarily of juveniles. As 

a member of RTM, he was involved in multiple acts of violence, all occurring on June 5, 

2013. During a three-hour period on June 5, 2013, Mr. McDonald, and his accomplices 

were involved in committing two acts of carjacking and attempted to rob a third 

individual. While attempting to rob the third individual, a struggle ensued, where that 

individual was armed with a firearm. During the course of the struggle, that individual 

was shot and killed by an accomplice.

Needless to say, the conduct that Mr. McDonald was associated with and engaged 

in on June 5, 2013, was unacceptable and serious. The manner in which they all behaved 

created a risk of serious injury to all three individuals, and that risk resulted in the death 

of the third individual. It happened when the individual resisted and was armed with a 

gun. It was not premeditated, contemplated, or foreseen by Mr. McDonald. On that day, 

Mr. McDonald was only 17 years old. Mr. McDonald has demonstrated acceptance of 

responsibility. 

Mr. McDonald was born on September 17, 1995 and currently is 21 years old. Mr.

McDonald did not have the typical childhood. His mother, Dabrina McDonald, was only 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1445 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 11
4

17 years old and a single mother when she gave birth to Deontay. He had only sporadic 

contact with his biological father, Johnny Hall, and last saw him when he was 12 years 

old. While his mother has been the primary caretaker for Mr. McDonald, it was 

extremely difficult for his mother to provide the structure, discipline and guidance 

necessary to her son; she has long suffered from a debilitating medical condition, as well 

as having the responsibility of other children to care for. Through much of his teen years, 

family support and structure was virtually nonexistent and Mr. McDonald sought support 

and acceptance among his peers, many who also struggled with similar lack of structure 

and family support. 

Adding to his significant challenges, Mr. McDonald was very early diagnosed 

with both Bipolar disorder and ADHD. He was prescribed medication; however, the 

medications had significant unpleasant side effects, which resulted in difficulties 

remaining compliant with the medication regime. He lacked the guidance and support to 

develop strategies to cope with those challenges.

Mr. McDonald felt isolated and alone in his struggles, and in fact, he was. He 

experienced bullying at school and in the neighborhood, and sought comfort and support 

in the only place available to him: his peers who were facing similar struggles.

Mr. McDonald first came to the attention of the juvenile justice system in July, 

2010, and at 14 he was placed in a residential juvenile center. After his release, a month 

and a half later, he was returned to his mother, and placed on “intensive probation.” 

However, his mother was still lacking the ability to provide any support or disciple, and 

he quickly was in violation of his probation for being “incorrigible.” Surprisingly, 

despite having been diagnosed with Bipolar disorder and ADHD, the Court then 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1446 Filed 01/30/17 Page 4 of 11
5

determined he was no longer in need of support or supervision, and terminated all 

supervision and support services. Within three months – not surprisingly -- he was once 

again before the juvenile court, where it was alleged that he and co-defendant Meyer 

Thedford were arrested attempting to steal a car, unsuccessfully. He was once again 

placed on probation, and once again, lacking support at home, very quickly was found in 

violation of his probation. In December, 2011, he was committed to a juvenile facility 

and spent the next year in custody. In December, 2012, he was released to once again 

return to his mother, where once again he was offered very little support, guidance or 

services from the juvenile authorities. His probation – and any oversight – was quickly 

terminated in March, 2013, and once again he was on his own. Within months, the 

events which now bring him before this court, occurred. Following the charged events 

(which occurred on June 5, 2013) in July, 2013, Mr. McDonald was arrested in yet 

another act of alleged gang-related conduct, charged and convicted as an adult in State 

Court, and has been in custody continuously since then. He is currently serving a State 

Court sentence, imposed in November, 2013, of 2 years (for Felony Firearm), 

consecutive to a sentence of 3-15 for a charge of Robbery Not Armed. His first out date 

on his State Court sentence is July 21, 2018. Mr. McDonald has now been in custody 

almost continuously since he was 15 years old, except for a brief period of time (from 

January – July, 2013) when the charged events occurred.

Mr. McDonald does not want to spend the rest of his young adult life in prison. He 

truly would like to become a productive member of society. He expresses the same 

hopes and dreams for the future shared by many young men. He exhibits a growing 

awareness, insight and inevitable maturity shared by many as they reach adulthood. 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1447 Filed 01/30/17 Page 5 of 11
6

Since his incarceration, he has developed a close, supportive relationship with his 

mother’s current husband, his step-father, and regrets he did not seek out his guidance 

earlier. He has reconnected with other family members and realizes that their support 

will be crucial in the coming years. Mr. McDonald hopes to one day give back to his 

community and share with other young men facing similar challenges, all he has learned, 

in hopes of sparing other young men the same fate he now faces. 

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

provide just punishment for the offense

The sentencing range agreed to between the parties does reflect the seriousness of 

the offense, promotes respect for the law and does provide just punishment. The parties 

have agreed that the sentence of imprisonment may not exceed 288 months, i.e., 24 years 

and may not be less than 228 months, i.e., 19 years. The sentence will also be 

accompanied by a period of supervised release, which can be up to 5 years. This is a 

significant period of incarceration. It demonstrates to the public that one that engages in 

such activity that Mr. McDonald engaged in, will spend much of their life in the prison 

system and be monitored by this Court. 

Mr. McDonald requests that this Court order a sentence to run concurrently with 

his State sentence. Pursuant to 18 USC 3584, “if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a 

defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms 

may run concurrently or consecutively...” 18 USC 3584(a). District courts “shall 

consider, as to each offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the 

factors set forth in section 3553(a).” District courts must consider the advisory 

recommendations of the Guidelines and any pertinent policy statements issued by the 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1448 Filed 01/30/17 Page 6 of 11
7

Sentencing Commission. 18 USC 3553(a)(4) and (5). The Guidelines state that the 

sentencing judge should run the sentence “concurrently, partially concurrently, or 

consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable 

punishment for the instant offense. U.S.S.G. 5G1.3. The application notes to this 

subsection provide that a number of factors should be considered to “achieve a 

reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense and avoid unwarranted 

disparity.” Those factors include the type and length of the prior sentence, the time 

already served on the undischarged sentence and the time likely to be served before 

release, and “any other circumstance relevant to the determination of an appropriate 

sentence for the instant offense.” See U.S. v. Harmon, 607 F.3d 233 (6

th Cir. 2010). 

Defendant asserts that taking into consideration all relevant factors, this Court ought to 

impose a sentence to run concurrent with the State sentence.

To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct

A sentence of imprisonment as contemplated by the parties, provides adequate 

deterrence to criminal conduct for both the defendant and society. It sends a message to 

the public that this behavior will not be tolerated. It also delivers a message to the public 

that this conduct results in one’s freedom being lost for a significant amount of time. 

To protect the public from further crimes of defendant 

A term of incarceration as contemplated by the parties provides that protection. 

Deontay McDonald is currently serving a State Court sentence. Following his release 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1449 Filed 01/30/17 Page 7 of 11
8

from his State Court sentence, he will be placed in the federal system. While he is being 

supervised in that system, the public is protected.

Provide the defendant with needed education or vocational training, medical care or 

other correctional treatment in the most effective manner

Mr. McDonald was in and out of the juvenile system for the majority of his life. 

While in the system, he received no skills, no vocational training, no method or means, 

which would enable him to support himself. He participated in programs that the juvenile 

system provided, however, when he was released to his mother, no additional guidance 

was provided. 

Mr. McDonald has always been interested in obtaining his General Education 

Development certificate and obtaining formal education in culinary arts or architecture. 

There are programs within the federal system that Mr. McDonald will avail himself of. 

These programs will provide a skill for him and/or vocation. When released from 

whatever sentence this Court imposes, Mr. McDonald will be monitored and have the 

skills necessary for him to support himself. 

As previously stated, Mr. McDonald has been medically diagnosed with Bipolar 

disorder and ADHD. While in the juvenile system, and during his time spent at the 

Michigan Department of Corrections, he received counseling services and was prescribed 

medication. He will require further medical services to address his issues.

The kinds of sentences available 

The sentence available to this Court is one of imprisonment. The Probation 

Department advises a custodial term with an advisory guideline range from 360 months 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1450 Filed 01/30/17 Page 8 of 11
9

to life. The parties have agreed, should this Court accept the agreement, to a period of 

incarceration of not less than 228 months (19 years) to no more than 288 months (24 

years). Mr. McDonald is currently serving an undischarged term of incarceration within 

the State system. He is requesting that this court’s sentence run concurrent with his State 

sentence.

Further, this Court also has the discretion to “credit” Mr. McDonald with the time 

already served on his State Court conviction against his Federal sentence, and order his 

sentence run concurrently with the full pre-existing sentence – i.e., retroactively 

concurrent. The issue of sentencing “credits” has been somewhat muddled by a number 

of seemingly inconsistent provisions of the United States Code and the Sentencing 

Guideline provisions, and case law. Mr. McDonald urges this Court to adopt the 

reasoning of the 3

rd Circuit in U.S. v. Brannan, 74 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 1996) and Rios v. 

Wiley, 201 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2000), and subsequent cases, wherein the Court expressly 

ruled that sentencing Courts did indeed have the discretion to account for time served in 

similar situations. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2002, superceded on 

other grounds by USSG 5G1.3(c) app. note 3(E)(2003); 18 USC 3584; USSG 

5G1.3(b)(c). 

The need for the sentence to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct

There are several co-defendants that in accordance with a Rule 11 Plea 

Agreement, pled guilty to the same conduct that Mr. McDonald engaged in. For example, 

Meyer Thedford’s sentence guideline range is 87 to 108 months or 135 to 168 months; 

Brandon Sims sentence guideline range is 78 to 97 months or 135 to 168 months; and 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1451 Filed 01/30/17 Page 9 of 11
10

Brandon Owens was sentenced to 188 months. Mr. McDonald has already been in

custody continuously since July, 2013 (approximately 43 months) for related conduct. 

Quite frankly, the potential total punishment faced Mr. McDonald far exceeds all other 

defendants.

Conclusion: 

Mr. McDonald respectfully requests that this Court take the above into account 

when fashioning a proper sentence for him. Mr. McDonald has an enormous amount of 

support from family and other loved ones in the community. He understands that he is at 

a crucial stage of his life. This Court is going to impose a significant prison sentence, and 

this realization has had a significant impact on Mr. McDonald and his family. He is 

prepared and willing to obtain the necessary skills, which will give him the opportunity to 

be a productive member of society. Though he cannot go back in time and erase what he 

did, he prays and wishes to one day be able to give back to society, especially within his 

community.

Mr. McDonald urges the court to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater 

than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Maria Mannarino

Maria Mannarino, P39531

431 Gratiot

Detroit, Michigan 48226

248-761-7347

DATED: January 30, 2017

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1452 Filed 01/30/17 Page 10 of 11
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 30, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing 

documents with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to the Assistant United States Attorney. 

/s/ Maria Mannarino

Maria Mannarino, P39531

mmannarino@comcast.net

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 269, PageID.1453 Filed 01/30/17 Page 11 of 11