1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D-1 DAVID HANSBERRY

Defendant.

______________________________/

Case No. 15-20217

Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III

SENTENCING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Theodore Levin United States Courthouse

231 West Lafayette Boulevard

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff

United States of America:

For the Defendant

David Hansberry:

J. MICHAEL BUCKLEY

U.S. Attorney's Office

211 W. Fort Street

Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-226-9732

MICHAEL J. HARRISON

Harrison Law PLC

240 Daines Street

Birmingham, Michigan 48009

248-430-6421

To obtain a copy of this official transcript, contact:

Linda M. Cavanagh, Official Court Reporter

(313) 234-2616 • linda_cavanagh@mied.uscourts.gov

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1950 Page 1 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

OBJECTIONS TO THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT:

Government Objection Numbers 1 and 2:

Comments by the Court...............................13

Comments by Mr. Buckley.............................13

Comments by Mr. Harrison............................16

Ruling by the Court.................................19

Defense Objection Numbers 1 and 2:

Comments by the Court...............................20

Defense Objection Numbers 3(1) and (2):

Comments by the Court...............................22

Comments by Mr. Harrison............................23

Comments by Mr. Buckley.............................24

Further Comments by Mr. Harrison....................27

Ruling by the Court.................................28

Further Comments by the Court.......................30

Defense Objection Number 3(3):

Comments by the Court...............................31

Comments by Mr. Harrison............................32

Comments by Mr. Buckley.............................32

Ruling by the Court.................................33

Defense Objection Number 3(4):

Comments by Mr. Harrison............................34

Comments by Mr. Buckley.............................35

Ruling by the Court.................................36

Defense Objection Number 5:

Comments by the Court...............................38

SENTENCING:

Allocution by Mr. Harrison..........................42

Allocution by Defendant David Hansberry.............46

Allocution by Mr. Buckley...........................68

Comments/Sentencing by the Court....................73

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1951 Page 2 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

3

Page

MOTION FOR REMAND:

Motion by Mr. Buckley...............................78

Response by Mr. Harrison............................79

Ruling of the Court.................................80

EXHIBITS

Identification Offered Received

NONE

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1952 Page 3 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

4

Detroit, Michigan

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

_ _ _

(Proceedings commenced at 10:16 a.m., all parties

present)

THE CASE MANGER: The Court calls Case No. 15-20217,

United States of America versus David Hansberry and Bryan

Watson.

Counsel, please state your appearances for the

record.

MR. BUCKLEY: Good morning, Your Honor. May it

please the Court, Michael Buckley appearing on behalf of the

United States. Seated with me are our paralegal, Mrs. Maria

Koch, and the case agent, Michael Fitzgerald of the FBI.

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning to you.

AGENT FITZGERALD: Good morning, Judge.

MR. HARRISON: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael

Harrison appearing on behalf of David Hansberry together with

Joshua Kushnereit.

MR. FISHMAN: Good morning, Judge. Steve Fishman on

behalf of Mr. Watson.

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning to you as well, and

good morning to all the counsel. Sorry for being a short bit

late, and thanks for being on time.

We're going to do sentencings for Mr. Hansberry and

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1953 Page 4 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

5

Mr. -- Mr. Watson and we're going to start with Mr. Hansberry,

so let me invite Mr. Buckley and Mr. Harrison to come forth and

we can talk about legal issues to begin with.

Before I do that, the Court received three letters

that were literally thrown on the courthouse steps from some

citizens, and the citizens' names are Shawniqua Smith, Martiese

Lindsay and I believe K.C. Smith, and I've read all this. And

essentially these letters suggest that the officers made

criminal choices and seek the highest punishment available to

the officers. Have both counsel gotten copies of these?

MR. BUCKLEY: I have not. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. HARRISON: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I have extra copies, and I'm

going to pass these out to you and let you read them before

we -- before we enter any sentences. But I've got one for the

United States and one for Mr. Harrison, if you would pass those

out, and if you hang on to those, I'll get you copies on the

break, but those are my only two copies, okay?

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Judge.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you both very much. So

you can read those before we go to allocution.

I received a letter from Tharadrous White on behalf

of Mr. Hansberry. I received a number of letters that were

relevant to both defendants that I read in support of their

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1954 Page 5 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

6

character and lesser sentencing, a large stack. I know that

Mr. Harrison supplied those all to the Court.

You've seen all those, correct, Mr. Buckley?

MR. BUCKLEY: I have. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. And then I have an

exhibit, which I'm not exactly sure how it got in the file or

where it came from, but it's a internal office memorandum from

the Internal Affairs Unit dated April 15, 2015. I haven't

considered this and I frankly don't know why it's there, but it

appears to be an exhibit to a memo or something. So can

anybody give any me guidance on this? It's from

Commander Brian Stair -- excuse me, from Sergeant Dietrich

Lever to Commander Brian Stair, and it's Exhibit No. 1,

Inter-Office Memorandum from Internal Affairs.

MR. HARRISON: May I, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yeah, of course.

MR. HARRISON: Your Honor, I believe that was

attached to Defendant Hansberry's Sentencing Memorandum as

Exhibit I.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARRISON: And it was an exhibit that was

provided to the Court for consideration of --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARRISON: -- the arguments made in the

Sentencing Memorandum.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1955 Page 6 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

7

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Very good. All right.

Very good. Thank you. I -- I have it; it just wasn't -- it

wasn't attached.

So there are a number of -- a number of letters that

I have read attached to Mr. Harrison's Sentence Memorandum,

numbers -- pages 1 through 27, from police officers and --

and -- and the like.

So I also have the United States Sentence Memorandum,

its Exhibits A, B and C and D, which include transcripts and an

FBI report of Agent Fitzgerald.

So I have Defendant Hansberry's Sentencing --

Sentencing Memorandum and I have the officer, William

Hampstead's, report, so I think I have everything. Am I

missing anything that I should have -- I've read all this. Is

there anything I haven't gotten that I should be aware of or --

MR. HARRISON: Well, Your Honor, there -- there was a

reply memorandum filed on behalf of Defendant Hansberry to the

government's motion, and on that, for purposes of the record, I

do need to make a correction to the Court.

THE COURT: I don't know if I have a printed copy of

that, but I can -- I can get it online and determine whether or

not I've read that. When did you file that, Mr. Harrison?

MR. HARRISON: That was filed Monday, I believe late

morning, of this week contemporaneous -- or not contemporaneous

but soon followed by motion for a new trial that was joined by

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1956 Page 7 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

8

co- -- the co-defendant.

THE COURT: All right. I've got the motion. The

government hasn't had any chance to respond to that so we're

not going to deal with that right now.

But let me try to get your reply to the government's

Sentence Memorandum because I haven't looked at that, to be

quite honest with you.

(Brief pause)

Okay. February 20, 2017, docket number 167, Response

to Government's Sentence Memorandum. I have that in front of

me.

MR. HARRISON: Your Honor, for purposes of the

record, may I inform the Court and -- and for the Court, may I

inform you as to an error that I made in that memorandum --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. HARRISON: -- at this time?

THE COURT: What page?

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Judge. Your Honor, in that

memorandum, I -- although not the crux of what was being

argued, the argument had to do with the credibility of Gary

Jackson for purposes of attributing money for the guidelines

using his testimony.

But in there I questioned the timing of the FBI

report, which I believe was January 12th. I didn't -- as I

explained in there, I didn't understand how the report could

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1957 Page 8 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

9

have been generated prior to my Sentencing Memorandum being

filed in February.

I since then, actually just last night, reviewed my

objection, my original objections to the Pre-Sentence

Investigation Report, and noted that I had made the same error

describing the participants, the conversation. The

participants were actually Gary Jackson and Frederick Tucker,

and I had made the error both in the Sentencing Memorandum and

in the previous objections that the conversation was between

Gary Jackson and Calvin Turner, and there also was a typo as to

a.m. versus p.m.

I brought this to Mr. Buckley's attention this

morning, my -- my realization that I made that error, and I

apologized for any inference that may have been brought from

that. I did in -- in -- in there suggest that perhaps it was a

typographical error as to -- as to the date in the FBI 302.

But I extended my apologies to Mr. Buckley and to -- indirectly

to Mr. -- Agent Fitzgerald, and I apologize to the Court for

that oversight.

Otherwise the reply memorandum, the crux of it is the

credibility of Gary Jackson for purposes of attributing acts

of -- of conduct that should be relevant conduct for purposes

of -- of 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), which would be the amount of money

involved in the alleged -- or the -- actually not alleged --

the conspiracy.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1958 Page 9 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

10

THE COURT: So -- so it looks like starting bottom of

page 3, top of page 4, the error is that you're suggesting

there was recordings that captured Gary Jackson and Calvin

Turner. That's an error. The -- the fact, presumably the FBI

report and my recollection of what went on in the trial of the

case, was that the conversation was between Gary Jackson and

Fred Turner, otherwise known as Deke, and you -- you are --

are -- are making that correction now in open court, right?

MR. HARRISON: Well, Judge, actually it's more than

that. I made the correction I believe in quoting the

transcript of Gary Jackson, which was page 117 of his -- of his

testimony, lines 1 to 4 and lines 18 to 19. In court I

correctly identified the call by time and participants, but in

my subsequent objections to the Pretrial Report and in my

Sentencing Memorandum, I mischaracterized the parties.

And beyond that, I suggested that -- not realizing I

had made the prior mistake, I suggested that I didn't

understand how the report could have been generated in January

because I made the mistake in the Sentencing Memorandum filed

in February, not realizing I made the same mistake in November

in my objections.

THE COURT: You got -- you got way out ahead of

yourself and -- and made arguments and said things in reliance

on -- on something that you later learned was mistaken, right?

MR. HARRISON: I did.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1959 Page 10 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

11

THE COURT: All right. Okay. All right. Well, I'll

note the correction in the -- in the document. Again, the

document was apparently filed on a federal holiday two -- two

days ago, so candidly I knew there was a motion but I haven't

seen that reply. I'm going to have to read it more thoroughly,

and I'll do so in light of the correction you just made.

But Mr. Buckley, do you want to speak to this at all?

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Judge. Just briefly, to the

extent Mr. Harrison has apologized for maligning my character

for integrity, I accept his apology in that regard.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I -- I did see that there's

some, you know, personal statements made on -- on -- on page 4,

and I find that to be uncommon between counsel, but it appears

that it was driven by, as I said before, Mr. Harrison getting

ahead of himself and making a mistake. He called that out in

open court, apologized, Mr. Buckley accepted the apology. So I

don't think we have any more issue about the reply, do we?

MR. HARRISON: Not on my behalf, Your Honor.

MR. BUCKLEY: No, not at this time, Judge.

The government is in the process of responding to the

motion for a new trial, which I believe should be denied on

both procedural and substantive grounds, but we're preparing a

response.

THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to say anything about

that other than that I'll read everything when it's fully

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1960 Page 11 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

12

briefed, and if we need to have a hearing, we will, and if we

don't, we'll just grant or deny the motion, okay?

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, sir. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. We'll go from there. All

right. Good. Well, I think we're ready to get to work.

The Court has recited everything that it has in front

of it. I am going to take a minute before -- we'll take a

short break so I can read the reply that was filed on the 20th,

acquaint myself with that.

But let's talk about these government objections. I

read them extensively. I looked at the law in support and

everything else. My sense, Mr. Buckley, of Objection Number 1

and Number 2 is that with regard to Number 1, you want Mr.

Hansberry's amount of loss increased by $862,000 because under

the law, acquitted conduct, if proven by a preponderance of the

evidence, can be -- can be counted by the Court.

And then with regard to Objection Number 2, it seems

that you support and -- and corroborate that argument with the

testimony of Lamar Calhoun, among others. And then I believe

you want a -- an additional $54,000 included, for a total of

1,000 -- I'm sorry, you want $996,000 extra on the basis of

that testimony as well as the $54,000 that I mentioned from

Calhoun, for a total of $1,050,000 as the loss figure.

Doing that would get us to a overall Offense Level of

40 and a proposed guideline range, according to the government,

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1961 Page 12 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

13

of 292 to 365 months.

And if you'd like to correct or illuminate me on

anything I said and augment your objection, you go right ahead

and do so now.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

May it please the Court, the Court's quite correct

with regard to acquitted conduct. The cases cited in the

government's pleadings accurately state that the Supreme Court

has held that conduct underlying acquitted counts may be

considered by the Court in fashioning sentence if they were

proved by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing.

And, Judge, my point is simply this. This Court sat

through a weeks-long trial. The Court heard testimony

concerning six separate rips during which the defendants agreed

to steal drugs and drug proceeds from drug dealers. I

respectfully suggest to the Court that the testimony of these

witnesses was compelling and -- and it appeared to be credible

and it was corroborated in various ways.

And one thing I'd ask the Court to consider is that

there were six separate rips charged, and although those counts

were acquitted, none of those drug dealers knew each other, but

all of them said that they had been wronged by police officers

and by these two defendants, these same two police officers.

Furthermore, Judge, the -- the acquitted conduct was

corroborated by an undercover recording captured by former

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1962 Page 13 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

14

police officer and cooperating witness Arthur Leavells. Arthur

Leavells began to cooperate with the FBI. And during a meeting

with Mr. Hansberry on September 7th of 2014, Mr. Hansberry,

without any prompting, starts reminiscing. He starts

reminiscing about some of the search warrant executions he and

his crew, including Mr. Leavells, conducted. And along with

hundreds and hundreds, if not over a thousand, search warrants

executed by Hansberry's crew, the search warrant executions

that he would bring up, Judge, years later relate to these

acquitted counts. He mentions by name Renee Williams, Count 3.

He mentions by name Nicholas Simmons, Count 4. He mentions

indirectly the house where Knuck, Arthur Knuckles, set up those

guys that ran in the basement. That was Christopher Wilson,

Judge, Count 5 I believe that was.

And if the Court would like to hear it, I'm prepared

to play a portion of -- of that recording. I've provided

transcripts of the clips I plan to play to defense counsel this

morning. And I know the Court presided over trial, I know the

Court was attentive. We're prepared to play a couple clips

today, Judge, and they total about 21 or 22 minutes. But --

THE COURT: I don't think that's necessary. I mean

if you would insist or have a legal basis for playing tapes,

I'd -- I'd go along with you, but I have a -- frankly, with all

due respect, I have a very, very good handle on the testimony.

I've looked at some transcripts myself, I'm -- I've read all

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1963 Page 14 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

15

your memos, and I -- believe me, I remember the testimony in --

in -- in the trial. So that's what I would -- and I -- and

I -- I -- I think in -- in terms of -- in terms of time and

efficiency and -- and the Court's calendar, I -- I would

probably say we don't need to do that, but if you insist or

have a legal -- legal reason, we -- we can do that.

MR. BUCKLEY: Your Honor, it's your courtroom and

I'll proceed in any fashion that the Court deems appropriate.

THE COURT: Okay. I -- I guess I'd prefer to proceed

in the fashion that I recollect the -- all the testimony you

just referenced, and -- and we've seen transcripts and I don't

think we need to have those 21 minutes worth of tapes played

this morning. That would be my --

MR. BUCKLEY: I understand, Judge, and I accept that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BUCKLEY: So lastly, Judge, with regard to that

meeting, Hansberry does say, "If they had Kemp and Deke, it

would be so easy. What they need to be up on my phone for?

You can just tap him and just come in there and to talk to

you." Kemp was Calvin Turner who did testify at trial, and

Deke was Fred Tucker who did testify at trial.

So it's our position, Your Honor, that the acquitted

conduct was proven by more than a preponderance of the

evidence, and we would ask the Court to include it in

calculating the appropriate guidelines range.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1964 Page 15 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

16

THE COURT: Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much.

Mr. Harrison, of course you may respond to any and

all of that.

MR. HARRISON: Well, thank you, Your Honor. Your

Honor, it's true, as the government correctly notes, that

United States vs. Watts, the Supreme Court in a per curiam

opinion, and the Sixth Circuit in United States vs. White, the

Court is free to consider acquitted conduct, Your Honor.

But, however, we did cite some case law to the Court.

In a denial of writ of certiorari, three of the justices, I

believe it was Scalia who wrote the opinion and it was joined

by Clarence Thomas and Justice Ginsberg, were very concerned in

the case that we cited that the Court at that time did not take

this issue up for further clarification after the Court's

decision that made the guidelines non-mandatory to the Court.

They were concerned that judicial fact finding could fly in the

face of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. I believe the issue is

ripe and still may be addressed.

But it's not a matter of whether this Court can

attribute acquitted conduct but whether it should under

circumstances such as these where virtually all of the wrongful

conduct that was alleged was charged in specific counts, and

those counts were unequivocally tossed out and discredited by

the jury in their verdict.

And out of respect for the defendant's Fifth and

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1965 Page 16 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

17

Sixth Amendment rights, out of respect for the jury's verdict

itself, Your Honor, I would respectfully suggest that the Court

shouldn't do that, especially when we look at the witnesses

that we're talking about. These were witnesses that were all

repeatedly impeached. These were witnesses that were mostly

all over the place in terms of the money. I remember to -- one

specific instance, Nicholas Simmons, how many different -- how

many different versions of how much money was in that bag did

we hear? "300,000. 200,000. 250. I don't know. I took some

out for my birthday. I'm trying to -- I'm trying to add money

on to get the man." We heard all sorts of things about that.

But, you know, all of these people, Williams,

Simmons, Wilson, Browning, Tucker, Vasquez, this is all

acquitted conduct, Your Honor, and acquitted because, I would

suggest, the very testimony that the Court received and the

jury received was inherently incredible.

I would go beyond that, Your Honor, and -- and, as I

have in my memorandum and my reply brief, suggest to the Court

that the attribution of any money under these circumstances is

inappropriate or at least should not be done under these

circumstances.

Beyond the additional moneys, the I believe it's

996,000 that the government wishes to have you attribute,

probation in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report attributed

essentially the -- the difference between the $3 million from

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1966 Page 17 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

18

the 2010 truck seizure that Mr. Jackson claimed was on the

truck and the amount seized together with the -- I believe it

was -- I believe it was the claim of Calvin Pulley I believe

for an additional amount of money.

Judge, we would object to the inclusion of that if --

as I've -- I've cited some transcript from Mr. Jackson. Mr.

Jackson begrudgingly admitted on cross-examination that he

personally didn't know how much money was there. I've provided

the Court with other examples of why Mr. Jackson is not a

witness who should be relied upon for much of anything.

And the only testimony we had about allegedly money

being taken from that truck was his testimony and this

incredible testimony from Officer Leavells, a man who admitted

that he had on numerous, numerous occasions sworn to tell the

truth and perjured himself to other judges and to prosecutors,

who claimed that he saw another officer with big things under

his shirt. The Court may remember we saw photographs of those

packages of money, and the idea that the money could have been

under an officer's shirt given the size of the bundles is

ridiculous.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARRISON: Also the Court may remember there was

testimony that there were multiple law enforcement agencies

that responded to that scene almost immediately.

And I would ask the Court on behalf of Defendant

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1967 Page 18 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

19

Hansberry to attribute no money under 2B1.1(b)(H).

THE COURT: All right. We're going to get to that in

a minute, but any other legal argument on the objection that

Mr. Buckley's lodged to the Pre-Sentence Report? Because I'm

ready to rule on that.

MR. HARRISON: No other legal argument, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Look, my sense of the

case is, quite simply, that Mr. Buckley may very well be right.

The -- the case was extremely ably presented and contested, and

there was evidence that was indeed corroborated. There was

independence of actors. There -- there was in many ways all

the government could do to prove the -- the substantive counts,

but the jury acquitted on those counts, and why they did that,

I don't know.

The -- the issue Mr. Buckley raises, quite honestly,

was addressed by Mr. Harrison and comes down to me as a very

straightforward legal issue. And I am and have been -- and I

read this case when it came out because I was very concerned

and interested that a situation like this one might come up --

convinced by the concerns of Justices Scalia, Thomas and

Ginsberg about whether or not the Sixth Amendment is violated

when courts impose sentences that but for a judge-found fact

would be reversed for substantive unreasonableness.

My concern is that agree or disagree, and Mr. Buckley

agrees and Mr. Harrison doesn't because that's their respective

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1968 Page 19 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

20

roles, I am a manager of the courtroom. I am a ruler on the

evidence. I am not a finder of fact in a criminal trial, and I

don't think it's for me to find facts, even though they were

proven, I do believe, by a preponderance of the evidence. And

even more so, it's not my job to find facts. It's the jury's

job to find facts. They did not find facts to support

conviction on the substantive counts, and therefore I am not

going to consider conduct and I'm going to, with respect for

the compelling way they were presented, overrule the

government's objection and not impose any additional guidelines

calculations on the basis of them. So that will be the Court's

ruling on government Objections Number 1 and Number 2.

Let's get then to the objections of the defendant and

try to streamline these if we can. Objection Number 1 and

Objection Number 2 by Mr. Harrison essentially take issue with

the information set forth in paragraphs 6 through 8, 9 through

26 and paragraph 27, and I have -- I have encountered these

types of situations before. The -- the simple fact of the

matter is that the probation officer wrote the version of the

offense based on the information that was supplied by the

government. The defendant was interviewed by the probation

officer and had an opportunity to give a -- his side of the

story.

I don't find anything in the paragraphs that Mr.

Harrison objected to either unstated by the evidence or not

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1969 Page 20 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

21

touched upon within the case. It's certainly Mr. Harrison's

job and obligation on behalf of his clients to -- client to

object to materials that he don't -- he doesn't believe would

be factual, but the probation officer's work is supported by

fact and the materials supplied by the government.

I would note the objections, incorporate them into

the Pre-Sentence Report by means of the addendum that was

supplied by Mr. Hampstead, and state that the probation

officer's work is contested -- excuse me, correct but highly

contested by the defense.

And I don't think any of these things necessarily go

to the -- the -- the next objections I'm going to get to go to

the overall compilation of the guidelines score, but I would

note the objections on the factual matter, not sustain the

objection or deny it but allow the report to continue to

contain the objections so that the Bureau of Prisons and the

Sentencing Commission know the overall thrust of what the

government and the defense believe was the offense conduct

here. And that would be my ruling on Objection Number 1 and

Number 2.

Anything else beyond that, Mr. Harrison?

MR. HARRISON: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Buckley, do you want to speak to any

of those matters?

MR. BUCKLEY: No, sir. Thank you, Your Honor.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1970 Page 21 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

22

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's get then to the

heart of the matter. Objection Number 3, two-level enhancement

under 2C1.1 -- all right. Here's the issue on all these things

that I can tell. The defendants were con -- convicted of

conspiracy to extort. A conspiracy is an agreement with a

number of -- well, with -- with -- with overt acts. We know

the instructions said that. We know that the jury took that

seriously.

Mr. Harrison wants to say that the conspiracy -- I

don't want to put words in your mouth and you'll get to speak

to this, but Mr. Harrison wants to say that the conspiracy was

an agreement, maybe one or two things were done that would

support conviction on that count, but these multiple acts of

extortion, the amount of loss, including some of the -- the

moneys that -- some of the co-defendants who were involved in

the acquitted conduct but necessarily had to be involved in

conviction on Count 1 were -- do not support the enhancements

under 2C1.1(b)(1) or 2B1.1(b)(1)(H).

I respect the objection and I'm -- I'm -- I've read

everything. I just don't know how we get to the point where we

say there was a conspiracy and overt acts but there was no --

especially in wake of the entire evidentiary record lodged by

the government, how we say there was no additional evidence

beyond an agreement and -- and -- and -- and maybe some sort of

overt act to carry it out that wouldn't support these

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1971 Page 22 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

23

objections. Go ahead, Mr. Harris -- or enhancements. Go

ahead, Mr. Harrison.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Your Honor.

Well, you know, again, I think we're left to

speculate, and unfortunately it puts the Court in the -- the

same difficult position that it -- that the Court was in in

looking at acquitted conduct because, of course, the

instruction requires an overt act in furtherance of the

conspiracy. It doesn't require a substantive crime be

committed by anyone.

And my concern is that whereas here virtually all of

the imagined crimes were charged substantively and rejected by

the jury, that the Court is left to -- to speculate what --

what -- what specific overt acts and how many were committed,

you know, but the -- the enhancement of two levels requires

more than one. And, Judge, I -- I -- again, I think that the

Court has to reach conclusions here that may conflict with the

verdict that we received and that I know this Court and I

certainly respect.

With regard to the second one, 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), the

amount of money, again, as I argued earlier, I'm concerned that

it would require, to get where probation got, basically to

accept Gary Jackson and I suppose Arthur Leavells' testimony

that there was this 8 or $900,000 stolen from the truck in

2010.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1972 Page 23 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

24

And when I -- when I look closely at the testimony

that was received, the Court -- you know, I agree with the

Court. You heard all the evidence, Judge, you heard it all,

and you -- you probably know it -- know it as well or better

than any of us. But I hope, Judge, that you struggle with

accepting Mr. Jackson's testimony with regard to the amount of

loss when he himself admitted on cross-examination, again, that

he didn't really even see the money being packed on the truck.

He's assuming that it was 3 million, but he admitted that the

money was turned over to the cartel ten days before it was

loaded on the truck. It was out of his possession and control.

It requires not only that Mr. Jackson speculate but then, on

top of that, this Court to speculate as to the amount of money

that was there. And while the Court, of course, is free to do

that, Judge, I would just caution that it would be

inappropriate under these circumstances.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me -- let me stop you there.

I think you've spoken to Objection Number 3, sub-paragraphs 1

and 2, which is exactly where I'm at. And I'd like to hear Mr.

Buckley's response, unless you have anything else to say.

MR. HARRISON: I don't. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Buckley.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

Very briefly, with -- with regard to -- to Gary

Jackson, Mr. Harrison's recollection of his testimony and,

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1973 Page 24 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

25

again, the slant of it is far different than mine. Gary

Jackson, Judge, never wavered, never wavered on the fact that

the money shipment to the cartel was $3 million. That

testimony was corroborated, Judge, by prior consistent

statements that he made to Calvin Turner, and there were

statements of Arthur Leavells that were recorded made to

Hansberry saying, "Little always said it was 3 million." He

was adamant. So, Your Honor, there were prior consistent

statements which corroborate Gary Jackson's position that it

was $3 million. I don't believe he said the money was turned

over to the cartel ten days before the shipment. If he did, he

did. But in any event, he has always been steadfast in his

assertion that it was $3 million.

And, Judge, to the point, I don't think that this

decision for the Court on this enhancement for more than one

act of extortion is as difficult as Mr. Harrison would portray

it because I'm going to give the Court some examples of acts of

extortion which were wholly unaffected by the acquittals. One

obviously was the -- the theft of the nearly $1 million by the

defendants on July 26th of 2010.

Mr. Harrison's also forgotten the testimony of Lamont

Calhoun. Lamont Calhoun, the Court will recall, was

wheelchair-bound; he had been shot off his motorcycle on the

Lodge Freeway. And he testified about a rip he participated in

of a man named Hightower on Monte Vista Street. And he said

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1974 Page 25 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

26

that after -- after Mr. Watson raided the Monte Vista home, and

Mr. Watson was a member of Mr. Hansberry's crew at that time,

Hightower pressured Calhoun, said, "Hey, I want money for the

half a kilo that I fronted you." And Mr. Calhoun testified

that he said to Mr. Watson, "I need something to show

Hightower." And if the Court will recall, Mr. Watson,

accompanied by Mr. Hansberry, introduced as Watson's boss, gave

Lamont Calhoun the fake Snowden search warrant with the forged

judge's signature and a fake name of a police officer as the

affiant.

So you have the $3 million money seizure. We have

the Monte Vista rip.

Also Lamont Calhoun testified that at one point

Hansberry, Watson and he planned a ten-kilo rip and that Mr.

Hansberry suggested the use of a GPS tracker on the victim

dealer's car. That would be three acts of extortion.

And then, Judge, we have the Calvin Pulley two-kilo

rip on Ohio Street on March 3rd of 2013. And if the Court will

recall, that was the rip which the FBI was able to demonstrate

that the defendants placed two dummy kilos, two sham kilos of

cocaine on evidence and that the -- the two kilos stolen from

Calvin Pulley were sold by Arthur Knuckles.

So, Judge, that's at least four acts of extortion. I

think the Court can also consider some of the acts based on

acquitted conduct, but the Court need not do that.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1975 Page 26 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

27

THE COURT: Okay. All right. You know --

MR. HARRISON: May I -- may I briefly respond, Your

Honor?

THE COURT: Yeah, of course. Go right ahead.

MR. HARRISON: Just -- thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Go right ahead.

MR. HARRISON: Judge, just quoting from our

Sentencing Memorandum, with regard to the ten days, Answer,

Gary Jackson, "10 days before the money was already accounted

for and pushed over to the cartel. Question, "Okay. And so

you gave the 1.5 million to the cartel some days before the day

the money was forfeited?" Answer, "True." That's Gary Jackson

transcript, page 99, lines 4 through 8.

So again, Judge, in terms of Jackson, the most -- the

most money he had possession and control over was 1.5. He gave

that to the cartel ten days before. The Court may recall, the

other 1.5 was cartel-generated money. Jackson testified he

wasn't actually physically present when they were loading it

and counting it. It's very speculative, Judge.

And then in terms of the overt acts that Mr. Buckley

has addressed, I would just suggest to this Court that the

Court heard the testimony as Lamont Calhoun, and Mr. Calhoun I

believe expressly said he didn't have dealings with Mr.

Hansberry beyond talking about things -- or the day -- the

question of the search warrant.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1976 Page 27 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

28

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. FISHMAN: Judge, excuse me for one second. I

don't mean to interrupt. If the Court is prepared to rule on

the Gary Jackson 900 and some thousand, would it be possible

for me to be heard on that before you do that, or are you going

to defer that ruling until --

THE COURT: I'm going to defer that because I -- I

might make a different ruling in -- in different cases,

frankly.

MR. FISHMAN: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. FISHMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Just thinking about that now.

All right. Look, here I've tried to stay as

open-minded as possible on -- on all these things. And -- and

the -- the problem with guideline sentencing, in my view, is

that, you know, the Court has to -- and it's not comfortable

for the Court to do, but the Court has to make some difficult

decisions about these types of things.

In fairness, as a legal matter, what I would say, and

this will be my ruling, is that I -- I believe the probation

officer's report and the analysis of 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), in light

of Mr. Harrison's objections and in light of Mr. Buckley's

argument, should be applied. And the reason I think it should

be applied is that as a legal matter, I am able to find under

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1977 Page 28 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

29

the guidelines scenario as a matter of sentencing that the

$960,000 and two kilograms were extorted and diverted, and I

can say that for the reasons that were argued in the papers as

well as by Mr. Buckley in open court. But I can -- I -- I can

also find, and I remember this very vividly, the tape that Mr.

Jackson made of Mr. Hansberry that corroborated what had

happened and what was going to happen in the future.

So Objection Number 3, sub-paragraph 2, is overruled.

With regard to 2C1.1(b)(1), I can hardly differ from

the facts that Mr. Buckley lodged with the Court. But looking

at them in light of the arguments made by Mr. Harrison, I can't

say that the jury found all of those acts to have been

committed. There is some corroboration, although not the

strength of the sort that supported my ruling on Objection

Number 3, sub-paragraph 2. And I would certainly say that

the -- that the act of the diversion of the $960,000 cash found

by the probation officer is -- is supportable, but I feel, as

a -- a -- a jurist attempting to apply the guidelines,

uncomfortable with saying that there are multiple acts beyond

that in light of the verdict of the jury which acquitted the

defendant of many multiple counts and acts of extortion.

So therefore, Objection Number 3, sub-paragraph 1

is -- is sustained. And as of right now, going forward with

the probation officer's report, will be reduced by the two

levels that were found under that enhancement, all right?

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1978 Page 29 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

30

MR. BUCKLEY: Judge, Judge, may I just be heard on --

on one last --

THE COURT: Of course.

MR. BUCKLEY: I understand you've ruled, Judge.

THE COURT: Of course.

MR. BUCKLEY: But just so the record is clear, the

Calhoun Monte Vista rip and his conversation with Hansberry

about the ten-kilo rip and the Pulley rip were not affected by

the acquittals, they were not acquitted conduct, just so the

record's clear.

THE COURT: Well, why do you say that? I -- I'm --

I'm -- I respect your position, but what -- what -- what --

what -- why do you say that?

MR. BUCKLEY: Because those acts had nothing to do

with the counts that were acquitted. You had the Renee

Williams rip that was acquitted; you had the Chris Wilson rip

that was acquitted; you had the Nick Simmons rip acquitted;

Chester Dwayne Browning rip acquitted.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BUCKLEY: And gosh, there was the Vasquez rip

that was acquitted. There was one more, the name escapes me.

But -- but these acts which I've explained to the Court --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BUCKLEY: -- were totally independent of the

acquitted counts.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1979 Page 30 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

31

THE COURT: I guess my --

MR. BUCKLEY: Totally.

THE COURT: I guess my discomfort is -- and I looked

at the charging document actually -- is that I don't think

those were specifically set forth in the indictment in Count 1.

So that's why I -- you might have seen me going through this

during Mr. Harrison's argument, but --

MR. BUCKLEY: Judge, you're right, they weren't

expressly set forth in the indictment, but with all due

respect, I don't think there's a legal requirement that that --

they be.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BUCKLEY: Uh --

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Maybe there will be a

government and a defense appeal, but I'm going to go with --

I'm going to go with overruling 3, sub-paragraph 2, and

sustaining 3, sub-paragraph 1. And Mr. Hampstead's calculation

is currently reduced by two, okay?

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you for letting me be heard,

Judge.

THE COURT: Yeah, no problem. Thank you both.

Let's go to paragraph 35. I don't -- with all due

respect, Mr. -- Mr. Harrison, this is a difficult one for you.

I have looked at Partida, I have looked at Powers, but I have

also looked at -- I've also looked at 2C1.1(b)(3), and it seems

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1980 Page 31 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

32

that even a -- an officer, but especially one here who is a

lieutenant and somewhat active in the community, would qualify

for a public official enhancement under that particular

section. Go right ahead.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Judge.

Judge, the argument is simply Mr. Hansberry's --

Lieutenant Hansberry's position was a necessary element in the

extortion conviction. He had to be who -- he had to have his

position to have been convicted of what he was convicted, and

that therefore, the argument is that one of double-dipping.

It's improper to have to be a certain type of official and then

to get an enhancement --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARRISON: -- for being that official.

THE COURT: Okay. In other words, if he weren't a

public official, he couldn't have extorted. The fact that he

was a public official supported the conviction substantively.

If you go ahead and enhance the sentence based on his status,

that's -- as you correctly stated it, would be double-dipping

that was addressed by the two cases that I mentioned.

Mr. Buckley, response?

MR. BUCKLEY: Judge, simply that it's our position

that Application Note 4 of the pertinent guideline section

expressly states that a law enforcement officer is one deemed

to hold a sensitive position, and I think it recognizes the

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1981 Page 32 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

33

Sentencing Commission's recognition of the fact that it's an

especially serious offense when a police officer commits the

crime that Mr. Hansberry committed.

THE COURT: Okay. I am going to overrule paragraph

3 -- excuse me, objection 3, sub-paragraph 3 on the authority

of U.S. versus Partida. I believe that's the Sixth Circuit's

latest discussion about double-dipping in the guidelines. We

see this from time to time. I recognize the argument, but the

Court's rationale, which I'm bound to follow, is that

sentencing is a different idea than -- than charging, and

whereas Mr. Harrison is conceptually and argumentatively

correct, as a matter of law, the Sixth Circuit has disagreed

with him, and I don't think that I'm able to go beyond that --

go beyond that authority to find something different. So that

takes care of Objection Number 3.

Objection Number 4, if I can find it -- do I have

Objection Number 4?

MR. HARRISON: 3B1.1(a), organizer, leader

enhancement, four points, Your Honor, role in the offense.

THE COURT: My -- my report -- oh, there it is. I'm

sorry. Okay. Oh, I see. That's -- okay. All right. I

apologize. Objection Number 3, sub-paragraph number 4. My

apology to you. My -- it's obscured on my copy here. All

right. There's a four-level enhancement in paragraph 7 -- 37

for being an organizer or leader of criminal activity that

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1982 Page 33 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

34

involved five or more participants.

Go right ahead, Mr. Harrison.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor,

the thrust of the argument here is that if there were leaders,

the evidence shows the leaders were Art Leavells and Gary

Jackson. And I've cited some case -- case law for the Court,

Vandeberg, that says, you know, even being an -- having an

essential role or some sort of control in the conspiracy isn't

sufficient to -- to assess four points for control or authority

over the conspiracy itself.

Judge, we heard -- we heard testimony, Jackson, 123,

lines -- page 123, lines 16 to 25, explaining that even after

Hansberry -- Lieutenant Hansberry was no longer working with

Jackson or Leavells, that Leavells continued his relationship

with Jackson; that whenever Jackson had a problem, he would

direct it to Leavells for assistance; he helped out a couple of

relatives of -- of Mr. Jackson's. He was -- Jackson testified

that his contact was, I believe he -- he said, 60/40, meaning

60 percent with Leavells, 40 percent with Hansberry and/or

Bryan Watson.

And that, Judge, you know, the case law makes it I

think clear that just because of Sergeant -- Lieutenant

Hansberry's rank, then-sergeant, that's not sufficient to get

points for organizing or leadership in the conspiracy itself,

and for that reason, Your Honor, we're objecting to the

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1983 Page 34 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

35

four-point enhancement.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me take a look at something

briefly. As I do that, Mr. Buckley, if you want to get

started, the question is if -- if Lieutenant Hansberry was the

leader, who would be the five or more participants in criminal

activity under 3B1.1(a) that would support the four-level

enhancement set forth in paragraph 37? Go -- go right ahead.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

We feel rather strongly that this enhancement is

appropriate, and it has nothing really to do with the fact of

rank alone. The Court may recall the testimony in this case.

There was extensive testimony that as sergeant and raid

commander, Mr. Hansberry was the man on the street. He decided

what was seized, he decided who would be arrested and who would

be released.

There was testimony from Arthur Leavells that

everyone in the crew except for Officers Bray and Beasley were

involved in this activity. So if the Court takes into

consideration Hansberry himself, Mr. Watson, Mr. Leavells,

Police Officer Larry Barnett and -- and Officer Leavells

testified about one specific instance when Officer Barnett

stole a quantity of cocaine. Also other individuals were one

Officer James Napier, who is deceased, Officer Tourville and

Officer Geelhood. There were also other individuals, Your

Honor: Lamont Calhoun, Gary Jackson and Calvin Pulley.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1984 Page 35 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

36

And if the Court will just think back to what I call

the power moves recording, the meeting recorded by Gary

Jackson, when as soon, as soon as Hansberry, the leader,

excuses Officer Herbert from the room and another woman and

tells them to leave, he's alone with his -- his co-conspirators

and with Mr. Jackson, the first thing he says is, "I had to do

it this way to make sure you weren't with the feds, the DEA or

the FBI setting me up." He said, "I'm telling you this. I'm

telling you we can do it brown-bag style. I'm telling you that

we can give you money off the top." He says in the meeting,

"I'm telling you that if you or your people get arrested for

selling drugs, I'm gonna come and get you." I, I, I, I, I.

Judge, there's no question that Mr. Hansberry was the

organizer or leader of criminal activity involving more than

five participants, and so we think that the enhancement is

appropriate.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you

both.

I'm going to make a ruling here, and I've looked at

this very carefully. Again, Mr. Buckley has persuasively

argued the position of the United States, and yes, there was

testimony to support much, if not everything, that he had to

say.

As a matter of law, I guess what I have to look at is

my recollection of the evidence in light of the jury verdict

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1985 Page 36 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

37

and make an application under 3B1.1 that's proper.

What I did, in looking at the totality of the case,

and I relied extensively on the quotes from the tapes that Mr.

Buckley just put forth before the Court, was to determine that

Hansberry was at the top of the -- at the top of the chain. It

would certainly appear, based on all the testimony involving

that particular episode with Jackson out -- outside of the

search warrant area where he was interviewed and taped, the

conversation would involve Watson, Leavells by his own

testimony was involved in that, and certainly Jackson.

The other -- other individuals I'm -- I'm -- I don't

have the same level of -- of confidence in. Mr. Buckley's

position may very well and possibly and maybe even probably is

correct, but as a matter of law, I think I have to be careful.

And so accordingly, my judgment with regard to 3B1.1

is that Hansberry was the supervisor and leader of criminal

activity and he qualifies for leadership enhancement

adjustment, but -- but I can only find those four people to be

reliably beyond preponderance of the evidence those that I

could consider.

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to adjust the

probation officer 's report to find a two-level enhancement

which says that "if the defendant was an organizer, leader,

manager or supervisor in any criminal activity," which I think

he was, "other than described in (a) or (b)," which details the

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1986 Page 37 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

38

five people, which I haven't been able to find, then he should

get a two-level enhancement. So I would say I sustain the

objection in part and I will find that 3B1.1(a) does not apply

but 3B1.1(c) does apply.

And Mr. Hampstead's report now is a net minus four in

the overall Offense Level based on the rulings I made with

regard to Mr. Harrison's objections set forth in paragraph --

paragraph 3, 1 through 4.

All right. Now, that gets us to Objection -- unless

I'm missing something, that gets us to Objection Number 5 where

Mr. Harrison on behalf of his client requests Level -- if all

of his objections had been sustained, he'd be at Level 14,

Criminal History Category I, and a range of 15 to 21 months. I

would overrule that objection because based on the computations

the Court made, I have a different view of the guideline range.

Is there anything further you'd like to be heard on

with regard to that objection, Mr. Harrison?

MR. HARRISON: Not with regard to that objection, no,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Buckley?

MR. BUCKLEY: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Then the Court has entertained

argument on and resolved all objections to the Pre-Sentence

Report. The factual findings or, excuse me, the legal findings

of the Court is that the overall Offense Level is 38, the

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1987 Page 38 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

39

Criminal History Category is I, the sentencing range is 151 to

188 months.

The factual findings of Mr. Hampstead will be

considered by the Court but will be considered in light of the

factual objections raised by Mr. Harrison, and the Court will

rely on the overall record of the trial which it had the

benefit and privilege of hearing over the course of six, seven

weeks this past summer.

And that will be the -- that will be the Court's

rulings on all the objections. Any --

MR. HARRISON: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARRISON: I -- I'm sorry. I believe -- or did

the Court -- Court misspeak? I believe the level, Offense

Level would be 34, for a guideline range of 151 to 188.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. HARRISON: I thought I heard the Court --

THE COURT: If I -- if I didn't say that, I was

wrong. I netted out four -- I -- I sustained two objections.

I netted out four points as a result, and I came down at 34,

Criminal History Category I, 151 to 188. Everybody clear on

that?

MR. HARRISON: Yes. Thank you.

MR. BUCKLEY: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you both very much for

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1988 Page 39 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

40

those compelling and well-argued positions on your objections.

Now, let me see what else we need to do here.

There's no -- let me see if I have this correct, because I read

your Sentence Memorandum and I think you wrote your Sentence

Memorandum on the basis of what we just resolved. But you're

not -- you're not asking for a -- a departure, but you're going

to ask for a -- a variance when you allocute, is that correct,

Mr. Harrison?

MR. HARRISON: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So then I find there's no

departure authorized, none's been made by the United States,

and none would lie under the law.

I would like to talk very briefly about a fine.

There's a potential fine of $250,000 maximum on this particular

count. Guidelines suggest a -- a 25 to $250,000 fine, but my

overall sense is that there's no upside or even necessarily

ability to pay any sort of fine, so I'm not going to impose

one.

Which then leads to forfeiture and restitution, and

I -- I don't know what the government's position is at present

on those matters. If you'd like to be heard now, Mr. Buckley.

MR. BUCKLEY: We would leave it to the Court's

discretion, Judge. I -- I would respectfully request the Court

to consider at least a nominal fine. When one considers the --

the amount of money, and our position is it was well over a

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1989 Page 40 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

41

million dollars in drug proceeds that Mr. Hansberry stole and

used for his own personal enrichment, and there was testimony

that he essentially lived large based upon his extortion.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. BUCKLEY: There was testimony that he spent

thousands of dollars a week at the Ace of Spades Club where he

was considered a VIP. He -- he purchased an Aston Martin, an

Escalade, a Corvette. And I don't believe that all of the

money that was stolen has been accounted for. There was

testimony from Special Agent Kevin Nalu of the IRS. I would

ask the Court to at least consider imposing at least a nominal

fine in this case.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I appreciate that and

I will order restitution and/or a fine as well as -- there's no

forfeiture, right, that's all been taken care of?

MR. BUCKLEY: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then I'll take care of

those financial matters in my discretion.

MR. HARRISON: May I be heard?

THE COURT: Yes, of course. You want to speak to the

fine issue?

MR. HARRISON: If I -- if I could.

THE COURT: Go right ahead.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: I -- I -- I -- I read -- you know, I

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1990 Page 41 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

42

respect Mr. Buckley and his position, as you well know. My

problem there is that the probation officer found as a matter

of law or suggested to me there's no ability to pay. If I

ordered a fine in light of that finding, I'd -- I'd be in a

little bit of trouble, so I'm not inclined to impose one, okay?

MR. HARRISON: Fair enough. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. All right. Okay.

Very good. Let's have Mr. Hansberry come up to the microphone

and we'll get going on the various arguments that counsel wish

to make at this time. Okay. Mr. Hansberry's here in court.

He's now joined his lawyer at the microphone.

Mr. Hansberry has a right to make any statement or

present any information to mitigate the sentence. I would

recognize, first of all, Mr. Harrison on behalf of his client

for any remarks he'd like to make on behalf of the defendant.

Again, I sat through the trial. I read through the entire body

of the sentencing portion of the case. I've read all the

memos. I've read all the letters. And -- and I'm not

precluding or saying don't repeat, but you should bear in mind

that I do have a good idea of many things. And you go ahead

and say anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Harrison.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Your Honor.

And I -- I'll do my best not to restate. You know,

obviously, Your Honor, I brought up a number of issues to the

Court for the Court to consider with regard to a variance in

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1991 Page 42 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

43

sentence, including concern over unwarranted disparities in

sentence given the sentences -- the plea offers, the sentence

agreements. And then, in addition to that, 5K1 motions on

behalf of the co-defendants in this case are astronomically

different from the range that we're talking about here, and

that pursuant to 18 USC 3553(a)(6), the Court should consider

unwanted -- unwarranted disparities.

And these -- all -- all Mr. Hansberry did was

exercise his constitutional right to a trial in this matter.

He didn't get on the stand, he didn't perjure himself; he asked

for trial. And I understand that there would be a benefit of

cooperating, but I -- I would think that that's typically

contemplated in a 5K1 motion, and if you look at the pleas that

were given the other defendants, there is a significant

disparity.

Secondly, Your Honor, I'm concerned over

vulnerability of my client to abuse in the corrections system.

The Court heard testimony my client's been a police -- before

he was a police officer at 17 years of age, he was a -- he was

a Police Explorer. It's -- his entire adult and preadult

identity has been law enforcement. He has put lots and lots

and lots of dangerous individuals into the prison system, both

state and federal. We heard testimony, we had an actual cartel

member I believe testify as a witness here. These were very

dangerous people that they were targeting and pursuing, and I

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1992 Page 43 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

44

have great concern for him in the -- in the corrections system.

I'd ask you to take that into consideration.

Collateral consequences is another issue that we

brought up. David has known nothing in his entire life but law

enforcement. He's forever precluded from any -- any even

remotely related career as a result of this conviction, Your

Honor.

And he's got a young daughter. He -- who -- who --

who -- who is -- who is going to be injured. And -- and in

terms of collateral consequences and vulnerability to abuse, I

would ask the Court to consider the potential risk that his

daughter and fiancee may be under as a result of the facts and

evidence that came out in this case as a collateral,

additional, horrific punishment that he has to suffer as a

result of all of this.

Judge, the other thing I ask you to consider, and

while it may seem on one level ironic given the fact that Mr.

Hansberry is convicted in relation to his employment, but this

is a man who was a police officer for many, many years, and for

a great, I believe even majority of them, unrelated to the

narcotics field at all. I know that he ran a shooting team

that was overseen by the Attorney General's Office under the

Joshua Project; subsequently a Detroit task force, Swift, that

was all non-fatal shootings and violent crimes, carjackings,

armed robbery.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1993 Page 44 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

45

We've attached commendations that he received for his

work. You heard from people in varieties -- a variety of

different seg -- segments of public service that have written

letters on behalf of Mr. Hansberry, not in their official

capacity but in their personal capacities, how they knew him.

They knew him through work, how they knew him, the work ethic

that he had, his thoroughness, his dedication.

Even in light of this conviction, Judge, I would

respectfully suggest that this Court should give him some

credit for all those years of good work that he's done that's

been supported by members of that community.

Judge, that goes to the other issue which is the good

deeds and past integrity. I think it's supported by the

attachments that we've provided.

And finally, as I mentioned, he is a chronic

asthmatic. The Court probably noticed throughout the trial he

had to be medicated, and that's a health concern which the

cases say is another issue that the Court can consider.

I'd ask that you consider all of these factors,

Judge, and that you depart from the guideline range and fashion

a sentence that's fair and equitable, that's a deterrent, but

also takes into account the particular vulnerabilities of

Lieutenant Hansberry and the particular collateral issues that

he faces.

THE COURT: Very good. Thank you very much for those

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1994 Page 45 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

46

words, Mr. Harrison. Greatly appreciated as always.

And now, Mr. Hansberry, I would recognize you

personally to state any remarks on your own behalf that you'd

like to make to the Court in support of the sentence it should

impose. Go right ahead.

DEFENDANT HANSBERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, I understand that, based on the federal

rules and procedure, I am allowed to address the Court in

effect to mitigate my sentence. With your permission I would

like to proceed.

THE COURT: Of course.

DEFENDANT HANSBERRY: Thank you.

Early life. I was born in northwest Detroit right

outside of Rosedale Park. I have two parents, they're still

living and that are approaching their 70s. They've been

married for 45 years I want to say. I have a brother and a

sister. I have two nieces and two nephews. The family of my

own, Your Honor, I have is a fiancee named Sierra and a

daughter named Madison. I am also partially raising the two

sons, Cameron and Austin, of my deceased best friend.

I was educated at Redford High School. Shortly after

graduating from Redford High School, I attended Henry Ford

Community College where I received a scholarship to attend

University of Michigan in Dearborn.

When I was 14 years of age, I had the opportunity to

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1995 Page 46 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

47

go to San Diego, California. I had a cousin who's older than

me so I call him my uncle. He was pretty high ranking in the

navy. During that experience I had an opportunity to meet and

befriend a Navy Seal. That is what I wanted to do with my

life. I admired the service, the dedication and the commitment

and the willing to give it all, not for money, not for fame,

but for the opportunity to do things that other people could

not do. Everyone can't protect themselves, and there are

people in this country that have to protect those that cannot

protect themself.

I learned everything that I needed to learn about

becoming a Navy Seal by the time I was 15 years old, and I

realized that I did not have the opportunity or I would not be

physically capable to complete the strenuous task of becoming a

Navy Seal due to my chronic asthma.

So the next best -- the next best thing, Your Honor,

that I wanted to do was join the police department. That was

my alternative to serve this country. Without delay, I joined

the Law Enforcement Explorers Program through the Detroit

Police Department at the age of 15. Through that program,

it's -- it's situated similarly to the police department with a

rank structure. I reached the rank of lieutenant by the time I

was 17 years old in the Detroit Police Explorers Program.

Shortly after, I graduated out of that program and

was hired by the Detroit Police Department as a student police

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1996 Page 47 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

48

officer. I graduated at the age of 18 years old. I was a

sworn, armed, certified police officer for the City of Detroit

at the age of 18.

Your Honor, because of my youthful appearance, I

started to go undercover as a crack dealer at the age of 18 and

19. That is where I learned all the nuances of posing as

someone who sells illegal narcotics. Primarily my function was

to target buyers and suburbanites who came down here who would

feel comfortable and willing to deal with me because I looked

so youthful that the thought that I may be -- may be a police

officer never crossed their mind, and I had great success at

that. From 18 to 19 I did that.

By the age of 21 I was working with the Special

Operations Unit, and that unit is to investigate and apprehend

high profile cases with dangerous offenders such as criminal

sexual conduct offenses, any high profile shootings. If a

shooting happened at a skating rink or multiple victims or

kids, we would go after that. We worked often with the Violent

Crimes Task Force and we would work to apprehend those

dangerous offenders.

I had some success in that unit, Your Honor, and at

the age of 22 to 23 I was recruited to join the Narcotics

Enforcement Unit, again, partially and based on my

youthfulness, that my superiors felt that I had an edge on

other officers because I was youthful, I would fit in, I would

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1997 Page 48 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

49

blend, I would learn how to talk the talk, how to walk the

walk, and basically be -- how to hide in plain sight from drug

dealers or the -- from drug dealers or the detection of police

personnel.

And joining at 22 to 23, Your Honor, I was formally

trained. Previously when I went undercover as a crack dealer,

that was very kind of trial by fire. You know, I taught myself

what I needed to know based on dealing with people on the

streets. Well, at this point in my career, Your Honor, I was

formally trained, and in some of those trainings I received was

undercover tactics, how to recruit, how to handle, how to

manipulate, how to use informants and cooperating defendants,

how to apply for search warrants, the probable cause standard,

the methods that I needed to go through to get them authorized.

I was also trained in tactical and dynamic entry which, in

short, is raiding and clearing a house.

While assigned to this unit, Your Honor, I had the

opportunity to go undercover literally several hundreds of

times. I -- I conducted surveillance over a thousand times.

I've -- I've participated in over a thousand controlled buys,

which is me being a controlling officer and having an informant

purchase the drugs and being in close proximity to this

happening. And I also had the opportunity, Your Honor, to do

hundreds of undercover purchases myself where I would go in,

directly engage with the drug dealer and purchase the narcotics

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1998 Page 49 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

50

myself. Your Honor, this gave me the ability to emulate,

behave and learn the minds of people in the narcotics trade.

In 2006, Your Honor, I was promoted to detective

sergeant, the youngest to note. I was placed in charge of a

task force named the Joshua Project. This task force consisted

of Detroit Police Department, the prosecutors from the Attorney

General's Office, Special Agents from the Attorney General's

Office and the Michigan Department of Corrections. Here I

learned how to do crime group identification. I learned a lot

about interviewing and interrogation, warrant requests with the

Prosecutor's Office, case presentation to a prosecutor to get a

warrant authorized, and also case presentation in the courtroom

where I would assist the officer in charge in presenting the

case and the facts for the jury in the best way we could to

ensure conviction, Your Honor.

I've conducted over a thousand interrogations, Your

Honor, and I maintain personally that I have about a 90 percent

conviction rate.

While attending a department-sponsored interrogation

school through the Eastern Michigan University, I learned

something about myself, which was one of my best qualities of

interrogating, and that is I'm an emotional person. It was a

study during that time, Your Honor, this was around 2008, when

we were taking a look at re-approaching interrogations, and the

study determined, Your Honor, through Eastern Michigan that

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.1999 Page 50 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

51

people with high EQ, similar to intelligence quota, is

emotional quota, and that people with emotional quota make

better investigators because they actually care about people,

and they make better interrogations because they reach people

in a place not from fear or not from power or not from

leverage, but they reach people in their hearts and in their

minds, and you have a higher success rate and a higher chance

of getting a conviction if you can reach someone's heart and

someone's mind.

During my tenure as a detective sergeant and working

with the Swift Unit and the Joshua Project, I closed four of

the biggest armed robbery sprees in the department's history.

These sprees ranged from attempted murder, carjacking, armed

robbery and unarmed robberies. And these were crime groups,

Your Honor, and a lot of times these same groups would be

perpetrating all of these acts. Those are the crimes that I

would focus on mainly.

When Chief Warren Evans became the chief of police,

he created a new mandate for Narcotics Division, to out the top

tier narcotic traffickers. I was -- I was recruited to return

as a raid and tactical commander of Code 2913, Western

Enforcement District, which would later be promoted to

Conspiracy West.

While assigned to the Narcotics Conspiracy Division,

Conspiracy West had the highest stats and highest

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2000 Page 51 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

52

accomplishments in the history of Narcotics. We had to change

the tactics, Your Honor. We realized that buying crack from a

crack house and raiding it was not effective. The crack house

would go right back up the next day or sometimes the -- that

exact same day. So we had to change our tactics, Your Honor.

We had to master source manipulation, flipping defendants into

cooperators, using subterfuge for informants, using deception

and using police psychology.

Which brings me to two important points, Your Honor.

Not to belabor the Gary Jackson recordings, Your Honor, but I

want to express to the Court, and I would be remiss if I

didn't, Your Honor, I was a Detroit Police sergeant. By law, I

had the legal authority to talk to drug dealers. By law, I had

the legal ability to lie to drug dealers if it was in the best

interest of the city to remove more drugs off of the street.

It would be disingenuous for me to tell this Court

that every drug dealer that I come in contact with, it is

appropriate to lie, deceive or make false promises to them.

But there are certain circumstances, Your Honor, where that is

a appropriate and a necessary action or a necessary evil, and

that is when you have an opportunity to take two million

dollars worth of drug money off of the street, that is an

appropriate time. When you can seize a hundred kilos of

cocaine and stop them from hitting the cit -- hitting the

streets of the citizens of Detroit, Your Honor, that is an

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2001 Page 52 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

53

appropriate time.

I am telling this Court, Your Honor, the conversation

you hear between me and Gary Jackson, I am in total control.

The conversation was documented, Your Honor, through activity

logs, through paperwork that Gary Jackson signed, Your Honor,

and also through a police report, none of these things which

were admitted by the government but was omitted. All of these

documents exist. So I exercised my legal right as a police

officer to use some deception. I went back and made my

superiors aware of it and I documented that activity, the

location it happened and what occurred, on official department

paperwork, Your Honor.

And I'll move on from Gary Jackson. Thank you for

giving me the opportunity.

Secondly, Your Honor, and I'll be real brief, is the

conversation with Arthur Leavells. Again, Your Honor, I was a

sworn police officer for the City of Detroit. I had the

authority to investigate crime. As a police lieutenant, Your

Honor, I had the departmental rank to investigate other police

officers. When this allegation was brought to me by Bryan

Watson, I believed I owed both of them. I believed I owed Mr.

Watson an opportunity to create some space between Leavells and

going directly to Internal Affairs or the FBI so it would not

be telegraphed that he was the one making the complaint, and I

believe I owed it to Arthur Leavells, as a former colleague, a

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2002 Page 53 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

54

former friend, to interview him and to see exactly what was

going on before I took this complaint to Internal Affairs,

which would cause, as I am going through now, massive

destruction of a person's life, and I believe -- I believe I

owed it to them to make sure I knew what I had before I went.

I would like to commend Officer Watson, Your Honor,

because it's a very difficult thing to turn in a friend, a

colleague that you've worked with for ten years. To be honest,

Your Honor, I would have a hard time doing that. That is a

hard thing to do.

Your Honor, after having a meeting with Arthur

Leavells, I know that the call -- I know that the tape sounds

convincing. There's over 30 years of undercover experience in

a hour and a half worth -- worth of tapes that this Court and

that this jury heard, it's over 30 years. The tapes are going

to sound convincing, Your Honor. The recordings are going to

sound convincing.

But I believe what is more important, Your Honor, is

the action that occurred after the recordings, and that action

is, and this Court heard testimony, that I called Internal

Affairs, I made an appointment, I showed up for that

appointment, and I emotionally -- it was emotional, it was an

emotional moment for me -- I emotionally shared the contents

and the activities of Arthur Leavells with Investigator Timothy

Ewald of the Public Corruption Unit, Your Honor.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2003 Page 54 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

55

And I will move on from that. Thank you for allowing

me to touch base, to revisit that.

THE COURT: Of course, mm-hmm.

DEFENDANT HANSBERRY: Quite frankly, Your Honor,

candidly speaking, to get a hundred kilos off of the street,

Your Honor, and to seize a million dollars worth of drug money,

I would have told Gary Jackson whatever I needed to tell him to

get that information, and I would have not under any

circumstances followed up with any promises, Your Honor. And I

believe the Court record shows that Gary Jackson was not given

a penny of the money from that truck and he was paid legally

through the Detroit Police Department $250,000, which is

paperwork that I generated and sent up through channels to the

chief of police, and when the chief of police sent it back down

and approved it, that is when he was paid, Your Honor. And any

circumstances equivalent or similar to that, Your Honor, is

exactly how he would have been paid until Gary Jackson decided

in his mind he did not want to deal with me anymore.

Your Honor, the record is clear that Gary Jackson

accuses me of selling drugs, of stealing money and of helping

him steal money, Your Honor. And then the record becomes even

clearer, Your Honor, in the point where he testifies that, "I

never saw Hansberry again after that day. I don't know him. I

don't have any problems with him." That's the truth when

questioned by Michael Harrison if me and him had a rocky

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2004 Page 55 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

56

relationship.

Your Honor, I always took my investigations as they

came. When one of Gary Jackson's nephews I came across, I did

Gary Jackson's nephew no favor. I arrested him and I put him

in prison. When I caught Gary Jackson's top lieutenant, Your

Honor, with heroin and a gun and money, Your Honor, I made him

work. He had to produce a kilo of cocaine, Your Honor, to get

out of his case. I did no favors for Gary Jackson knowing what

I have.

And I'll move on. Thank you for allowing me to

revisit Gary Jackson again.

THE COURT: Mm-hmm, of course.

DEFENDANT HANSBERRY: I'm finishing up here, Your

Honor, and I would like to share with you some things. What

hurts me the most -- well, I'm heartbroken, Your Honor, as I

stand here today, and I'm -- I'm heartbroken, and what hurts me

the most is my proudest accomplishments that should have been

famous, Your Honor, has made to be infamous. The seizure of

$2.1 million, Your Honor, was one of my proudest

accomplishments. Before I even -- the first person I called

from that scene that day was my mom and dad, and you know what

I told them? "Your son is going to be on the news tonight. I

just got the biggest cash seizure ever in the history of the

Detroit Police Department." I let them -- I told them, "Call

all the family, set the recorders to tape, because this is the

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2005 Page 56 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

57

proudest moment of my life." And that moment, Your Honor, has

been turned against me and incriminated me and now has me

looking at a substantial prison sentence.

Your Honor, the FBI, the DEA, Border Patrol and the

command staff was at that location for one and one reason

alone, Your Honor: Because I was the commander at that scene

and I notified them. If I wanted to keep that scene isolated

and in a vacuum, Your Honor, I didn't have to make one phone

call. But I was trying to be transparent and I was trying to

minimize any opportunities for theft by inviting the federal

government to that scene.

In addition to inviting the federal government to

that scene, Your Honor, I attempted to turn the case over to

the DEA. They told me in response -- and I can still -- I

still remember the task force officer's name, Sergeant Darren

Johnson -- that they had another big investigation going and

they would not have the time or the manpower to put into this

seizure involving Gary Jackson. But right at that scene, Your

Honor, I was willing to turn over Gary Jackson as the

informant; I was willing to turn over the driver who we seized

the money from; and I was also willing to turn over the money

to the federal government. And these are facts, Your Honor,

that could be checked.

The second proudest accomplishment, Your Honor, is

something that is being used against me not in the proper

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2006 Page 57 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

58

context, and that is the conversation that I'm having with

Arthur Leavells about Renee Williams, about the Robson location

and about Nicholas Simmons.

Your Honor, if you recalled it correctly, I told

Arthur Leavells that all of the dope and all of the money we

put on the table at Narcotics and we only had four complaints.

That is -- excuse my language -- that expletive, starting with

the "S" word, is not easy to do so. Your Honor, through my

whole tenure at Narcotics, I turned in almost $50 million in

drugs and almost $5 million in cash, and, Your Honor, I did

that with the lowest complaint record ever, four notable

complaints.

Renee Williams, Your Honor, I was aware of because I

was investigated by Internal Affairs and cleared.

The Robson location, Your Honor, I worked tirelessly

with the DEA. Christopher Rosen is a source for the Drug

Enforcement Administration. I worked tirelessly. I turned

over reports, documentation, search warrants with the Special

Agent who was in charge of operating, Christopher Wilson, Your

Honor. And me and these agents came to the conclusion that we

believe, Your Honor, that all of the right players were in that

house and that there was money in that house. Whoever got out

of the back door with it escaped with the money or we could not

find it. The agents were more concerned with Christopher

Wilson conducting narcotics transactions without them knowing

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2007 Page 58 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

59

about it. I worked tirelessly with them, Your Honor. I

vividly remember five to six, what do you call them, conference

calls with agents, with Special Agents, with group supervisors

and with my bosses, Your Honor.

Nicholas Simmons, Your Honor, that recording and the

way it's been presented to the Court today, Your Honor, is

taken out of context. I actually, Your Honor, felt bad for

Nicholas Simmons. I actually liked him and I felt bad for

him -- it goes back to my emotional EQ -- because he was thrust

into a role at 20 years old by his father to be the Mexican --

to deal -- to be the direct connection to the Mexican cartel, a

21-year-old. I wanted nothing more than to get him out of that

line of work. I believe that if you recall the tape properly,

I told Arthur Leavells, I offered him a legitimate way out, and

he turned it down. I said there's no way he would have been

indicted if he would have worked with me and gave up Alex, the

supplier out of Southgate, but instead, Your Honor, he turned

me down.

I went to the deputy chief of Management Services

Bureau named Benjamin Lee. I had Nicholas Simmons approved for

$1.4 million bonus payment, which dwarfs the payment of Gary

Jackson, 1.4 million if he would have gave up the Sinaloa

cartel, and he looked me in my face, Your Honor, and told me he

needs 10 million, and that's when we went our separate ways.

But I really felt bad for Nicholas Simmons because he was just

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2008 Page 59 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

60

a kid and he had no choice. He couldn't tell his father no.

He was thrust into that world.

Your Honor, those were some of my proudest

accomplishments. Those are things that I wore and I looked at

as a -- somewhat of a protection. I always looked at the fact

that if I ever got investigated or if I ever got looked into,

that people would look at my record and see that I don't have

any complaints. They would look at how transparent that I have

always been with any federal agents.

Your Honor, I don't know if Agent Christopher Hess is

here or not. Me and Agent Christopher Hess worked a case out

of East Detroit with a Lawrence Montgomery who was prosecuted

right in this business -- right in this building and he got

18 years. I would have took a bullet for Agent Hess and any

agent that I worked with.

And these things, Your Honor, have been turned

against me and I'm really heartbroken about it.

Your Honor, for eight city cops, seven police

officers and one sergeant, to effectively have intercepted

money from a Sinaloa cartel, and on two occasions, Your Honor,

was one person away from the Sinaloa cartel, that's without any

wiretaps, Your Honor, that's without any federal grand juries.

That is from hanging out at clubs like the Ace of Spades and

jewelry shops like Zeidman's and Guchason's (sic) at Northland,

running plates, hanging around, writing plates down, hard

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2009 Page 60 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

61

boots-on-the-ground, pencil-and-paper police work to get to the

level where you have effectively disrupted the Sinaloa cartel,

and you were -- at two times, Your Honor, I was one person away

from the Sinaloa cartel, Your Honor. It's unheard of for a

city police department, especially one as cash-strapped as the

City of Detroit, it's unheard of, Your Honor, and I wore those

things as badges of honor.

Your Honor, you had an opportunity to see my

finances. And although, Your Honor, I was not a millionaire or

I wasn't making a quarter of a million dollars a year, Your

Honor, I made enough money to sustain my lifestyle. My

roommate is here today. I lived with a former Wayne County

sheriff, Your Honor, and I paid $1,200 a month for rent. We

split it $600 down the middle, and I had a $60 phone bill, and

that was my overhead. The place I stay in, Your Honor, had --

I was lucky enough, had no gas payment and no electric. That

was my overhead, Your Honor. I had no girlfriend, I was

single, and I had no children.

Some years, Your Honor, I made almost $150,000, and

in saying that, Your Honor, I was able to accumulate things.

To make that kind of money as a police officer, Your Honor, you

have to work so much. Some years I doubled and/or tripled my

salary. What comes along with that, the collateral that comes

along with that, Your Honor, is I missed every birthday party,

not some, I missed every one. I missed every Thanksgiving

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2010 Page 61 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

62

dinner. I missed every Christmas dinner. I missed every

baseball game. And I did it, Your Honor, not for the money but

for the love of police work, for the love of the game, so I did

it. The money was a fringe benefit that came along with it,

but I did it for the love of police work and for the love of

the game.

And the one silver lining that has came out of this

for me is I've learned to appreciate my family more, to learn

them more, to believe in them more, to have them around me

more, and to strengthen my relationship with God. Because I'm

ashamed to admit, Your Honor, police work was first in my life,

before God, before family, before children, before parents. I

was just one of those people. I was a -- I was just a

policeman and that's the only thing that was important to me.

Your Honor, standing in front of you today, I still

represent myself as a law enforcement professional, even though

that may be hard to believe. I give you some examples or maybe

you can deduce that for yourself. Your Honor, I remember days

where I would get to court, I would get to court early because

the first day I was late and it upset you, so I would make

sure, Your Honor, I was the first one in court. And, Your

Honor, sometimes I would see Ms. -- Ms. Koch or Ms. Couch (sic)

coming off of the elevator, Your Honor, carting a big cart of

evidence, Your Honor, that she was putting in this courtroom to

put me in prison, and you know what I would do as a law

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2011 Page 62 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

63

enforcement professional, Your Honor? I would run down here

and I would hold those doors open for her and I would hold

these galley doors open for her so she could get her evidence

to prosecute me in this courtroom because I'm a law enforcement

professional.

Since I've been suspended, Your Honor, I spent my

time tutoring young police officers and young sergeants. I

tutored about a group of 20, and, Your Honor, I am proud to say

that every member that I tutored has either been promoted to

the rank of sergeant or lieutenant or are eligible to be

promoted to the rank of sergeant or lieutenant. And I did that

free of cost because I still care about the future of the

Detroit Police Department and it becoming better and the

legitimacy of the Detroit Police Department.

When a police officer is shot or injured, Your Honor,

I'm the first person on the phone calling to make sure he's

okay. I'm the first person sending condolences, Your Honor. I

still carry myself as a law enforcement professional.

And I think the most dynamic of them all, and I think

the -- this Court will agree, is the people that took this

stand and testified against me, Your Honor, the drug dealers,

the people that cooperated, the people that turned on me so

they could get out of jail early, the people that made up all

of these false testimony about me, Your Honor, I live with

their secrets every day. I've never went and broadcasted

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2012 Page 63 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

64

anything in the newspaper. I've never got on T.V. and outed

any of these people. I live with their secrets, Your Honor,

secrets that would definitely put them in jeopardy and danger

and in peril. But I live by a creed, believe it or not, Your

Honor, and that creed and that integrity will not allow me to

expose the many things, the sensitive information that they

share with me about their close friends and their close

relatives who they were informing on that would definitely,

Your Honor, get them hurt or put their lives in jeopardy. I've

never shared one thing. I take those secrets to me -- with me

to bed every night, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

DEFENDANT HANSBERRY: Your Honor, as I close out

here, I'm asking for a sentence, Your Honor, quite candidly,

that does not require incarceration. Your Honor, I've lost

everything: my career, my reputation, relationships, hardships

with my family and significant financial damage. Your Honor, I

had accumulated nice things and I had a pretty nice life for

myself as a young basically executive in the police department.

I had the lifestyle that came with it. I had a nice condo, I

had a nice vehicle, I had money in the bank. You know, I

wasn't stressed out, I wasn't living check to check. You know,

I had opportunities. I was saving to purchase a home and

extend my family. I was planning to get married. Your Honor,

now I own a bed, a television, a couch and a Honda CRV that has

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2013 Page 64 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

65

200,000 miles on it.

Your Honor, I believe that winning nine out of ten

counts was a victory to some sort, but I believe being

convicted of one hurts me and has broken my heart. I never

thought, Your Honor, through this entire trial -- I sat in this

courtroom, Your Honor, and I stayed there at this table and I

listened to people say unimaginable things and come up with

unimaginable amounts of money, Your Honor, and I sat there and

I respected this courtroom, I respected those witnesses, and I

acted and behaved like a true gentleman and a true law

enforcement professional for five and a half weeks. I never

thought, Your Honor, for one minute that I would be convicted

of a crime. I thought people would apply logic and see through

a lot of these things, Your Honor, and that's a surprise, Your

Honor.

Last but not least, and this probably will come as a

surprise to the Court, to the prosecution and to the defense, I

wanted to ask you for leniency for Arthur Leavells. Your

Honor, I failed Arthur Leavells, and that is the truth. I was

his leader, I was his supervisor, and when he started to show

signs that his loyalty was to Gary Jackson and not the police

department, I remember the exact moment and the exact day. It

is when Fred Tucker and Gary Jackson placed a fake kilo of

cocaine, and he wanted a $5,000 bonus payment and I refused to

give it to him because it was a fake kilo of cocaine.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2014 Page 65 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

66

Arthur Leavells left my crew, Your Honor, within

three weeks, and now looking back on it, I understand what that

was. That was he was choosing Gary Jackson over me and over

the police department, and I failed him because I should have

pushed, I should have talked to him, I should have tried to

reconcile, I should have pushed hard for him to be removed from

the Narcotics Enforcement Section.

But, Your Honor, I looked at it cavalier and said

he's not my problem anymore, him or Gary Jackson, and I'm going

to continue with my crew and we're going to continue to pursue

big drug dealers. And in overlooking that, Your Honor, I

failed him as his leader. I should have not allowed him to

continue to fester or to grow in that relationship that he had

with Gary Jackson, or at least I could have made it very

uncomfortable to the point where he had to choose being a

police officer or being involved with Gary Jackson.

Although Mr. Leavells did not truth -- testify

truthfully here, Your Honor, I ask on my behalf that when he

comes before your court, you give him leniency because he was a

man following a leader, and his leader had all of the

indications and all of the signs that he was on a slippery

slope and I didn't give him a pole or a life raft or anything

to pull him up from that slippery slope.

Thank you for letting me revisit certain things in

the case. I know you certainly know the case and you didn't

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2015 Page 66 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

67

want to hear them again, but I appreciate that, Your Honor.

And I respectfully, Your Honor, request for a

departure, Your Honor. I've already secured a apprenticeship

with a heating and cooling company that I can start working

with if I am not incarcerated. They will take me in as an

apprentice and I can start heating and cooling.

Your Honor, I haven't given up on the system. I

still believe in the criminal justice system all the way

through the appeals court and all the way through the Supreme

Court, Your Honor. And I would love one day to return to

police work or become a lawyer myself, Your Honor, and play on

the higher level and to represent and provide robust defense

for people who come in the criminal justice system on the

defense side of the table, Your Honor.

Any consideration, Your Honor, goes without saying

would be more than greatly appreciated. It would give me a

chance to reconcile my life, to pick up some pieces, to start

over and to be a productive member of society. I believe I

have a lot of equities to offer and a lot of unique

experiences, and I believe I can change lives and affect lives,

Your Honor.

Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate

all those words and the spirit that under -- underlied them and

they're very helpful to the Court. Thank you again, Mr.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2016 Page 67 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

68

Hansberry.

Of course, the government has the right to make

remarks on behalf of the United States as to any factors in

sentencing or other matters I should consider. I read the

entire government's Sentence Memorandum and exhibits as well.

Mr. Buckley, go right ahead if you'd like to now.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate

that. May it please the Court, and thank you for letting me be

heard.

I don't always speak at sentencings, Judge, but in

this particular case I feel compelled, and I feel compelled to

respond to the comments of counsel and to Mr. Hansberry.

Now, at the risk of injecting a small amount of

levity into the proceedings, there's one thing that I will

agree with Mr. Hansberry on, and that's that Mrs. Koch is the

hardest working person at the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Now, Judge, Mr. Harrison asked the Court to vary

downward based on Mr. Hansberry's health and security concerns.

I respectfully suggest to the Court that the Bureau of Prisons

will accommodate those concerns, and a variance should not be

granted on those bases.

Mr. Harrison also talked about the good that Mr.

Hansberry had done while he was a police officer. Judge, in

response, the crime with which Mr. Hansberry was convicted,

which was, without question, the single most serious count in

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2017 Page 68 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

69

the indictment, was not reflective of an isolated instance of

bad judgment, it wasn't a mistake. It was a years-long

conspiracy, it was calculated, it was well thought out, and he

was the leader.

You know, Mr. Hansberry said to the Court that his

true interest was in -- was in protecting others. I think even

Mr. Hansberry would agree with me that drug trafficking is one

of the most serious problems that the City of Detroit faces.

Drug trafficking has been a plague upon the City of Detroit for

at least decades, Judge. Drug trafficking is the root of

hundreds of homicides. Drug trafficking is the motive for

countless assaults, robberies and carjackings. It has

Detroit's hospitals -- filled hospitals, it's destroyed

families. It has decimated entire neighborhoods with the same

efficiency as a nuclear blast.

And what's ironic, Judge, is who would know that

better than Mr. Hansberry himself? Based on the experience

that he outlined for this Court, he was out there every day, he

was running and gunning, he was investigating drug traffickers,

he was talking to them, he was doing undercover work, et

cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It is ironic, Judge, given how harmful drug

trafficking is, that Mr. Hansberry did what he did to find

himself in this situation today because, Judge, Mr. Hansberry

took an oath and he swore to fight drug trafficking. He

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2018 Page 69 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

70

violated that oath, Judge, for his own personal enrichment. He

made that badge he talked about a badge of shame. He brought

shame upon himself, his department and that badge, and he did

it for his own personal enrichment. And the evidence at this

trial showed, Your Honor -- again, this wasn't an isolated

instance. The evidence showed that he stole drugs and that he

agreed to steal drugs for his personal enrichment, and for his

enrichment, he agreed to steal over a million dollars in drug

proceeds.

And the Court heard how he did it. He talked about

employing deception legitimately as an undercover cop, but his

deception was not limited to his dealings with suspected

criminals. Mr. Hansberry employed deception by preparing,

approving and filing false police reports, which willfully

underreported or failed to report the amount or the fact of

seizures of drugs and drug proceeds. He used fake or

substitute kilos of cocaine to place on evidence to substitute

for the actual drugs that were seized and sold by him and his

co-conspirator and others. And he also used fake search

warrants, Judge. He made a mockery, a mockery of the justice

system; fake search warrant with a forged judge's signature on

it, bogo warrants.

Your Honor, the fact is that he, worst of all, failed

to arrest kilo eight drug dealers that he caught red-handed.

Those may include Nick Simmons. He talks about Nick Simmons.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2019 Page 70 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

71

When Nick Simmons' house was raided, Nick Simmons said he had

$300,000 in drug proceeds there and guns and a quantity of

drugs. Did Mr. Hansberry arrest him? No, he didn't arrest

him.

There was testimony by Mr. Simmons that Mr. Hansberry

pressured him and nagged him to set up rip-offs of others, and

the nagging was so bad, Mr. Simmons in the end placed kilos and

cash in an abandoned house pursuant to Mr. Hansberry's

instructions so Mr. Hansberry could retrieve them, and Mr.

Simmons said he sat out and watched Mr. Hansberry go to that

abandoned house and pick up the drugs and money.

So my point is, Judge, that as a sworn narcotics

officer, this defendant, these defendants had an obligation, a

sworn duty to take drugs off the street and, more importantly,

Judge, even more importantly, to take drug dealers off the

street. Mr. Hansberry agreed to allow drug dealers that he

caught red-handed to be released to set up rip-offs of other

drug dealers or to sell the drugs that was stolen by the

defendants.

Now, Mr. Hansberry talked at length about Gary

Jackson and he talked about the recording that was made. I

think it's important to note the irony here, Judge, because

Gary Jackson only recorded that meeting because the defendants

stole from him. They had promised him $300,000 off the top

plus a reward of $500,000, and he had to go to his own lengths

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2020 Page 71 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

72

to make sure that he got the premium payment, which was

$250,000 in cash, when that meeting was recorded. But it's

ironic, if -- if Mr. Hansberry and Mr. Watson hadn't cheated

Jackson, they'd all still be out there doing this, without

doubt.

Now, one thing Mr. Hansberry said too was that he put

all these drug dealers in prison. There were several that he

didn't, Judge: Nick Simmons, Louis Mars, Gary Jackson, Lamont

Calhoun. With regard to Mr. Simmons, Mr. Mars and Mr. Jackson,

those gentlemen were all arrested, investigated and prosecuted

and convicted by the feds; by ATF, by DEA, by the FBI. It was

Mr. Hansberry who chose to let them continue to operate with

impunity in the city and put those drugs back out on the street

and sell kilos of drugs in this city.

So, Your Honor, pursuant to Section 3553 and the

factors enunciated therein, we're asking the Court to consider

the gravity of the offense, the seriousness of the offense, the

need to promote respect for the law and the need to deter

others because this crime was about greed and -- and it was

about betrayal. And I respectfully suggest to this Court that

Mr. Hansberry stole money out of greed, but worse than that, he

betrayed his badge, his oath, his department, the citizens of

the City of Detroit and all other honest law enforcement

officers who risk their lives every day. For those reasons,

Judge, we ask for a sentence at the high end of the guidelines.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2021 Page 72 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

73

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, Mr.

Buckley. All right. And thanks to both lawyers, as always,

for their extremely hard work on this particular matter.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the 3553(a)

factors, I'm going to state the sentence, and then I'll give

the attorneys for both sides a final chance to make legal

objections to it before it's imposed, and then we'll go from

there.

I'd be, you know, remiss if -- if I didn't start by

saying that these types of cases, both in the courtroom and in

the community, rise an enormous amount of passion, and I think

the -- the -- the passion, the frustration, the anger is

palpable when you look both at the letters that I've seen

and -- and -- and some of the other materials in the file.

I think it's my obligation to be dispassionate about

the sentence and to make the -- the most informed decision that

I can as to the sentence based on the law and the facts that

came before the Court.

Obviously Mr. Hansberry has never been convicted

previously. We balance that with the fact that he was a law

enforcement officer who had a decorated career and, by his

testimony this morning, is obviously an appealing personality

with a desire to -- to have done his job properly and to

have -- and to have served the public as he was sworn to do.

I viewed the case, quite honestly, as one in which

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2022 Page 73 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

74

the government proved Count 1 beyond a reasonable doubt.

There -- there were tapes, there were financial incentives,

there was an entire IRS/financial aspect to the case that I

really believe demonstrated that the defendant, notwithstanding

his strong personality, his -- his good efforts and his noble

ideas, for some reason bought into the idea that doing a few of

the acts that were laid out in the indictment and demonstrated

at trial would enrich him somehow, and I -- I don't think

there's any -- any question that the financial motives and the

acts of the defendant, in conspiracy with others, were

calculated to violate the extortion laws set forth in -- in

Count 1.

There is overt statement in some of the letters that

I've seen from some of the public officials in the file and

some hint of that in other places that the acts of the federal

government in prosecuting or investigating this case were,

quote, vindictive. I read that word in at least one of the

letters that I read. I think those -- those thoughts are --

are dangerously mistaken.

And being as dispassionate as possible, I think what

we have here is not a situation that should anger the community

on behalf of -- of the defendant or cause anger on the -- from

the community in light of suggestions of vindictiveness, but --

but I think we see a great deal of regrettable, unimaginable

and -- and, frankly, sad conduct by an individual who had

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2023 Page 74 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

75

reached the top of his profession. And -- and why, I don't

know, but what I do know was a violation of the extortion law

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, the sentence guidelines are provided to me by

Congress. I don't sit here and make up a sentence. I am

suggested that the range of a sentence of this sort should be

155 to 181 months. I diligently worked through all of the

enhancements to be as fair and restrictive as I -- as I could,

and my legal judgment is that that is the -- is that that is

the appropriate sentence in the case.

I don't find any basis for a variance. I don't find

any basis for a departure upward or downward. The fact of the

matter is that when any police officer violates the law and

then violates the law in the sort of manner that's been

demonstrated by the United States in this particular case, it

causes mistrust in the public, it causes those in the law

enforcement profession to be downgraded in their eyes, and

it -- it -- it -- it may cause other individuals to think about

crossing the line for their own personal gain. So in terms of

punishment of this crime as well as a deterrent to help others

not engage in this sort of behavior, I believe a guideline

sentence is -- is -- is -- is authorized.

Now, the letters, by and large, without question, ask

for leniency, and I do believe that Mr. Hansberry's entitled to

leniency because I think at core he's probably a well-intended

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2024 Page 75 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

76

individual who committed criminal activity for reasons that

can't be imagined by the Court, and I think concerns of reform

and -- and I think that concerns of general deterrence,

leniency and things of that nature would support a -- a low

sentence within the guidelines, and those would be my ration --

that -- that would be the rationale for the sentence that I

intend to impose.

Therefore, pursuant to the Sentence Reform Act of

1984, the Court, having considered the sentence guidelines and

factors laid out in 18 USC, Section 3553(a) that I just went

over, hereby commits the defendant David Hansberry to the

custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for a term of 155 months.

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall

be placed on supervised release for two years.

It's further ordered that the defendant pay a special

assessment of a hundred dollars. That will be due immediately.

I will waive the imposition of a fine, the cost of

incarceration, the cost of supervision. That's all due to the

defendant's lack of financial resources.

Drug testing will be suspended because I've

determined that the defendant poses a very low risk of future

substance abuse.

And while on supervision, the defendant shall abide

by the standard conditions adopted by the U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2025 Page 76 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

77

That will be the sentence of the Court. Objections

from Mr. Buckley?

MR. BUCKLEY: No, just the objections that have been

preserved previously. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Objections that you haven't previously stated, Mr.

Harrison?

MR. HARRISON: No, Your Honor, no prev -- none that

weren't previously stated.

I would like to address remand if the Court would

allow it.

THE COURT: Okay. That's fine and I appreciate that.

We'll get to that in a minute.

The sentence that the Court stated earlier will be

imposed after the statements of counsel that they have no

further objections.

Mr. Hansberry, you have the right to appeal, and that

includes the right to appeal your sentence in the case. Any

Notice of Appeal that you want to file in the case must be put

on the docket within 14 days of the entry of judgment in the

case or within 14 days of the filing of a Notice of Appeal by

the United States. If requested, our clerk will prepare and

filed a Notice of Appeal on your behalf.

If you can't afford to pay the costs of an appeal or

for appellate counsel, you have the right to apply for leave to

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2026 Page 77 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

78

appeal in forma pauperis. That means you can apply to have the

Court waive the filing fee. On appeal, you can also apply for

court-appointed counsel.

Mr. Buckley in his papers asked the Court to remand

the defendant for immediate service of his sentence. Mr.

Harrison has objected to that. My general sense, based on

everything I see, including the contact I've had with Pretrial

Services, indicates that this individual would not be a -- a

risk of flight from the community. Granted, he is convicted of

a serious felony and sentenced to a long term of prison, but I

have no hard and fast evidence of any sort that would lead me

to believe that he's a -- a danger to the community.

I would then be inclined to order his report for

service of his sentence, but I would certainly allow Mr.

Buckley and Mr. Harrison to be heard further on that if they

want to. Mr. Buckley?

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

It's not in every case that I seek remand at

sentencing, but I think, again, this is a -- this is a very

serious offense, it's a very serious case. The -- the jury

verdict was returned, oh, about seven months ago. I

respectfully submit that Mr. Hansberry's had adequate time to

get his affairs in order.

Judge, there's an old axiom, "Justice delayed is

justice denied." But with regard to the Bail Reform Act

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2027 Page 78 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

79

factors, I suggest that there now has been a material change of

circumstances. Mr. Hansberry's been convicted for months, but

he's now been sentenced to a lengthy term of incarceration. It

would give him added incentive to flee.

I believe the testimony of the IRS Agent Kevin Nalu

during trial was that not all of the stolen drug proceeds were

accounted for. There -- there may be financial wherewithal for

him to flee.

But more importantly, Judge, is the danger to any

person in the community. Now, one of the clips that we were

going to play today, and I don't need to play it but I'm going

to tell Court that in talking to Mr. Leavells on September 7th,

2014, Mr. Hansberry said that if Louis Mars, who was currently

incarcerated in Kentucky and who testified at that case, showed

up on his porch, he was going to kill him. He said, "I'd shoot

him, I'd kill him," and then he used some expletives.

But in any event, Judge, it's our position that at

this time he should be remanded to serve his sentence.

THE COURT: Okay. And -- and just so you know,

without playing the tape, I did receive the entire transcript

as -- as Exhibit B to your Sentencing Memorandum. That was

laid out in your Sentence Memorandum and I -- I did -- I did

read those words. So I appreciate your position on that.

You want to respond, Mr. Harrison?

MR. HARRISON: Thank you. Briefly, Your Honor.

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2028 Page 79 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

80

Your Honor, we all met Louis Mars. If Louis Mars

showed up on my doorstep, I would be concerned for the safety

of my family and myself. I -- I think perhaps that was taken

out of context.

But, Judge, I think the most telling factor here is

the fact that upon conviction, the government did not object to

a continuance of Mr. Hansberry's personal bond. He's shown up

at every hearing. He retained counsel. He hasn't moved. He's

shown up to Pretrial Services. He hasn't had any violations

reported by Probation. He's not a risk to the community. He's

not a risk of flight. He's -- I understand there's a concern

over hidden money. I'd certainly like to know where it is.

But I don't believe he's got the wherewithal.

But more importantly than that, Judge, he's just

demonstrated to us that he's -- he's not going anywhere, and I

would suggest to this Court that a remand at this point, you

know, would serve no interest other than perhaps a public

spectacle.

THE COURT: Okay. I -- I have faith in -- in Mr.

Hansberry. I honestly believe that he honestly believes that

the evidence against him was insufficient, and I think he's

more likely to appeal or contest his conviction within

traditional manners rather than by -- by fleeing. I would

cert -- certainly hope so.

Nevertheless, I will remind Mr. Hansberry that your

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2029 Page 80 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

81

release conditions will continue apply -- to apply, the release

conditions that the magistrate judge previously put you on.

You will be ordered to report for service of your

sentence in the future. If you don't report for it, that's a

separate criminal offense that you could be prosecuted under.

The statute on that is 18 USC, Section 3146.

So I'll -- I'll -- I'll not order immediate

detention, but I will remind the defendant of those

obligations.

Both parties have copies of the Pre-Sentence Report.

Amended copies that reflect all corrections and resolutions of

disputed issues will be decided today. Complete corrected

copies will be prepared for the Bureau of Prisons and the

Sentencing Commission, and any other copies should be kept

confidential as is the practices of the district.

Now, I expect an appeal here, and when that's taken,

counsel on appeal will be able to look at the Pre-Sentence

Report, but counsel will not be permitted to access the

recommendations section, which is a longstanding local rule

that we have.

With that, I would say to the defendant straight up

this is, you know, extremely difficult for the Court to do and

I take no pleasure. I -- I've done the best I can, and I

hope -- I hope that the sentence and the entire process will

help you get back on your feet. I think you have a lot to

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2030 Page 81 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

82

offer. And I do thank the lawyers for their spirited

litigation which was helpful in arriving at what I perceive to

be the most just sentence that I could impose.

It's 12:25. We'll take a 10 to 15-minute break and

we'll come back and hear from Mr. Fishman and Mr. Buckley on

Mr. Watson's case, so we'll be in a short recess now.

THE CASE MANAGER: All rise.

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE CASE MANAGER: Court's now in recess.

(Court in recess at 12:26 p.m.)

(Proceedings resumed at 12:49 p.m., all parties

present)

THE CASE MANAGER: Court is now back in session.

THE COURT: Okay. Everybody may be seated.

You -- you can stay there, but Mr. Harrison notified

my clerk who notified me that I wanted to give the bottom of

the guidelines, and I -- I got ahead of myself and stated a

sentence of 155 months when the bottom is actually 151. I

meant to state 151 months. The judgment will reflect that.

And it was a simple mistake that I think is corrected by this

colloquy as well as what we state in the judgment. So it was

a -- you know, whatever the spoken version of a typographical

error would be, okay? So we'll -- we'll --

MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you both. Anything

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2031 Page 82 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

83

else from either --

MR. BUCKLEY: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Very good.

MR. HARRISON: No, Your Honor. May we --

THE COURT: All right. Thank you both.

MR. HARRISON: May we be excused, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You're -- yeah, absolutely.

(Proceedings concluded at 12:50 p.m.)

_ _ _

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2032 Page 83 of 84
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sentencing • Wednesday, February 22, 2017

USA v David Hansberry • 15-20217

84

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Linda M. Cavanagh, Official Court Reporter of the

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,

appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States

Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1

through 83 comprise a full, true and correct transcript of the

excerpt of proceedings held in the matter of United States of

America vs. David Hansberry, Case No. 15-20217, on Wednesday,

February 22, 2017.

s/Linda M. Cavanagh _

Linda M. Cavanagh, CSR-131, RPR, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

Eastern District of Michigan

Date: February 27, 2017

Detroit, Michigan

Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 178 filed 02/27/17 PageID.2033 Page 84 of 84