United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

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

v. HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

D6-DEONTAY MCDONALD,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Deontay McDonald has repeatedly proven himself to be a danger to the 

community. Dealing drugs, multiple assaults, a shooting, a robbery, carjackings, 

and murder—these are all on McDonald’s criminal resume—and he is only 21 

years old. To protect the community from Mr. McDonald, and to adequately 

punish him for his relentless criminal conduct, an extensive term of incarceration is 

necessary. The government therefore recommends that the Court sentence Mr. 

McDonald to a term of incarceration of 20 years, as being sufficient, but not 

greater than necessary, followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1454 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Related Through Money (“RTM”) is a criminal street gang that committed a 

sundry of crimes including murder, robbery, assault, illegal firearm possession, 

home invasion, carjacking, financial scams, and other offenses. 

The defendant has been a member of RTM since 2011, the year the gang 

was formed.

McDonald (on left) and Owens (on right)

McDonald’s affiliation with RTM was not limited to mere membership; rather, he 

participated in violent criminal activity over the course of several years. 

On June 5, 2013, McDonald and two other RTM gang members, Gino 

Solomon and Darren Hartley, went on a crime spree. In the late afternoon, the 

three left the residence of a fellow gang member for the purpose of looking for 

someone to rob or carjack. The group was armed with a .22 caliber firearm. The 

three walked around the neighborhood until they came to a suitable victim—a man 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1455 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

3

sitting in his car in his own driveway. They approached the victim, L.W., and 

displayed the .22 caliber firearm. The three demanded the white Chevy Impala and 

forced L.W. out of the vehicle—but not before punching him in the face. After 

assaulting L.W., McDonald and his fellow gang members got into the Impala and 

fled the scene.

Shortly thereafter, McDonald, Solomon, and Hartley arrived in the area of 

Pickford and West Outer Drive, in Detroit. They were driving the stolen Impala. 

Once there, they saw a female victim, A.M., sitting in a Ford Taurus. Solomon told 

the others that he wanted to take her car. McDonald and Solomon got out of the 

stolen Impala and approached A.M. Hartley stayed in the Impala. Solomon 

grabbed A.M. and pulled her out of the vehicle while displaying the .22 caliber 

firearm. McDonald and Solomon then got into her car and drove off. As they drove 

from the scene, McDonald and Solomon lost control of the car and crashed. The 

two fled the crashed car and got back into the stolen Impala with Hartley. 

After the second carjacking, Solomon told his accomplices that he knew 

where they could “hit a lick.” Solomon, McDonald, and Hartley traveled in the 

stolen Impala to the area of Archdale and Kendall in Detroit. Once there, they

parked near a residence on Archdale. After a few minutes, victim C.H. pulled his 

car into his driveway on Archdale and parked in his detached garage. As he walked 

toward his house, McDonald and Solomon got out of the Impala and approached 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1456 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

4

C.H. Solomon was armed with the .22. The robbery quickly went awry because 

C.H. was armed with his own firearm, a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. 

C.H. resisted the robbery and Solomon struck C.H. several times. McDonald stood 

a few feet away. During the struggle, one of the firearms discharged, killing C.H.

After the murder, Solomon took C.H.’s firearm and he and McDonald ran back to 

the Impala. Solomon, McDonald, and Hartley fled the scene and returned to their 

fellow gang member’s residence. 

ADVISORY GUIDELINE RANGE

The parties’ Rule 11 plea agreement calculated the advisory sentencing 

guideline range at 360 months (30 years) to Life. The probation department arrived 

at the same guideline range. PSR ¶ 75. However, the parties agreed in the Rule 11 

plea agreement that sentence of imprisonment may not exceed 288 months (24

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

SECTION 3553(a) FACTORS

Through 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Congress has provided the relevant objectives 

and factors to be considered by sentencing courts in imposing a “sentence 

sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” Those objectives are: (1) the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, and the history and characteristics of the defendant; 

(2) the need for a sentence to reflect the basic aims of sentencing (including 

retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation); (3) the kinds of sentences legally 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1457 Filed 01/31/17 Page 4 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

5

available; (4) the Sentencing Guidelines; (5) Sentencing Commission policy 

statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among 

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

and (7) the need for restitution. These factors support a sentence of 20 years’

imprisonment. More particularly, a sentence of that length will reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, appropriately punish defendant, protect the public, and 

deter McDonald (and others) from engaging in similar activity.

As discussed above, the conduct that led to defendant’s current criminal 

conviction involved his active participation in a violent street gang. Defendant’s 

criminal conduct encompassed dangerous and violent activities, which included 

murder, carjacking, and robbery. In a span of only a short few hours, McDonald 

participated in two carjackings and a murder. This extremely violent and callous

conduct warrants a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. 

Further, McDonald’s criminal history, which is astonishing for a 21-year 

old, reinforces the appropriateness of a 20-year sentence. 

McDonald’s first documented run-in with law enforcement was in 

November of 2008 when he was 13 years old. A Detroit Public School officer 

arrested McDonald inside a school for possessing marijuana packages for sale (12 

individual baggies). McDonald was charged as a juvenile offender. The matter was 

ultimately dismissed.

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1458 Filed 01/31/17 Page 5 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

6

In December of 2008—only a month after his first arrest—McDonald was 

again arrested for drug dealing. This time, McDonald was selling in front of a 

convenience store. The store owner contacted the police. Upon their arrival, the 

officers approached McDonald, who fled on foot. After a chase, officers caught 

defendant and arrested him. During the chase, McDonald discarded a baggie 

containing seven individual packets of marijuana. McDonald was charged as a 

juvenile offender. The matter was ultimately dismissed.

In 2010, when McDonald was 14 years old, he was again arrested by police. 

McDonald was in a vacant house and discharged a firearm multiple times. The 

gentlemen who lived next door to the vacant house told McDonald to stop firing 

the gun. In response, McDonald reloaded his gun and proceeded to pistol whip the 

victim, who received injuries to his head. In fear for his life, the victim fled from 

the scene; in response, McDonald discharged his firearm in the direction of the 

victim. McDonald was charged as a juvenile and pleaded guilty to Felonious 

Assault. PSR ¶ 52.

In July of 2011, while under the juvenile court’s supervision, McDonald was 

again arrested. Dearborn police officers responded to a call of suspicious 

circumstances involving a vehicle. Upon arrival, officers saw McDonald and 

Khalil Thedford (brother of co-defendant Meyer Thedford) inside the front area a 

vehicle which was not theirs. McDonald was in possession of a large rock and 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1459 Filed 01/31/17 Page 6 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

7

Thedford was in possession of a screwdriver. The two were actively trying to 

“punch” the ignition in an effort to steal the car. McDonald was arrested, charged,

and placed on intensive probation. PSR ¶53.

Court supervision did not have its intended effect on Mr. McDonald. On 

October 14, 2011, Officer Regina Hardy took a statement from two students who 

attended Cody High School. The students explained that they had been punched 

and kicked by a group of RTM gang members as they left the library. The victims 

gave Officer Hardy a list of gang members who assaulted them, which included 

Mr. McDonald. Defendant was charged with assault and battery. 

A few months later, on December 1, 2011, there was a large fight at Cody 

High School. DPS officers arrested ten members of RTM, including Mr. 

McDonald, for fighting with other students and damaging a teacher’s car.

In April of 2013, several RTM gang members, including defendant, went to 

Cody High School in an effort to intimidate and threaten a particular student, A.K. 

Ms. K. was an eyewitness to the homicide of Franklin Wallace a few weeks earlier 

committed by RTM member Brandon Owens. The gang members were walking 

around campus asking where Ms. Kennedy was. Their intent was obvious: to 

dissuade A.K. from “snitching.” One student explained that the RTM gang 

members, including McDonald, stood outside his classroom window yelling “RTM 

for life.” The student also saw Owens waiving around a pistol. 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1460 Filed 01/31/17 Page 7 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

8

McDonald continued his criminal activities. On June 6, 2013, the day after 

the murder of C.H., McDonald and Hartley drove the stolen Chevy Impala to a 

house on Harlow in Detroit. McDonald went to the back of the house and tried to 

break inside. His attempt to gain entry was unsuccessful, however, because 

McDonald cut his arm breaking out the window. McDonald fled back to the car 

and he and Hartley left the scene. During the ensuing investigation, detectives 

found blood at the scene of the attempted home invasion, which was scientifically 

matched to McDonald. Additionally, officers located the stolen Chevy Impala, 

which McDonald had dumped and torched. Despite McDonald’s attempt to 

conceal his criminal activity, investigators also found his blood on the car.

Charred car seat of stolen Impala

McDonald’s blood on stolen Impala

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1461 Filed 01/31/17 Page 8 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

9

Less than two months later, on July 21, 2013, officers responded to 

Henderson Park in Detroit on a call of an armed robbery. McDonald had pulled out 

a firearm and threatened two young females. He demanded their purse and phone, 

which they turned over. At the time, McDonald was with another RTM gang 

member. Police responded and found McDonald and other RTM members at a 

nearby convenience store. When they arrested him, McDonald was unarmed; 

however, officers saw another RTM member hide a gun in the store. Officers 

retrieved the firearm and discovered that it was C.H.’s .38 caliber Smith & Wesson 

revolver that was taken during his murder. McDonald pleaded guilty to unarmed 

robbery and felony firearm as a result of this incident. He is currently serving a

sentence with the Michigan Department of Corrections.

The extent and nature of defendant’s prior record weighs heavily in favor of 

a sentence of 20 years. McDonald’s criminal history is disturbing, and he has 

shown no willingness to abide by very basic rules of law, even while under the 

supervision of the criminal justice system. 

In light of defendant’s history and characteristics, McDonald is a dangerous 

individual who will undoubtedly continue his criminal activity. To date, only 

incarceration has deterred McDonald from criminal activity, and, based on his past 

conduct, there is a significant risk that but for continued incarceration there will be 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1462 Filed 01/31/17 Page 9 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

10

more victims of Mr. McDonald in the future. A sentence of 20 years will reflect the 

basic aims of sentencing such as retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. 

As previously stated, the Sentencing Guidelines in this case are 360 months 

to Life. With the Guidelines as a starting point, a sentence of 20 years is reasonable 

and far from “greater than necessary,” in light of McDonald’s crimes and criminal 

history.

As it relates to the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, it is 

worth noting that at the time McDonald committed these crimes he was 17 years 

old (i.e. an adult in the State of Michigan). His participation in the homicide of 

C.H. is felony murder. If he were convicted in the State, his sentence could have

been mandatory life.1 Thus, as compared to others who have been convicted of 

murder, a sentence of 20 years is evenhanded and no “greater than necessary.”

In sum, given Mr. McDonald’s disturbing and violent conduct coupled with 

his criminal history and inability to conform his actions to acceptable social norms, 

there is only one sentencing alternative: a lengthy term of incarceration. Given all 

of the circumstances, the risk that McDonald will harm another person is 

considerable and real; defendant is a significant danger to the community and the 

public must be protected. This, coupled with the fact that Mr. McDonald must be 

 

1 Even more fortuitously, had the charged incidents occurred a few months later, 

after McDonald turned 18, he would have been an adult in the federal system, and 

would have been subject to the death penalty or mandatory life.

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1463 Filed 01/31/17 Page 10 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

11

punished for his criminal conduct, makes a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment 

appropriate. Considering the §3553(a) factors, the government recommends that 

the Court sentence defendant to a term of imprisonment of 20 years (as being 

sufficient but not greater than necessary), followed by a five-year term of 

supervised release.

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA L. MCQUADE

United States Attorney

s/A. Tare Wigod

A. Tare Wigod

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

tare.wigod@usdoj.gov

(313) 226-9191

P58479

Dated: January 31, 2017

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1464 Filed 01/31/17 Page 11 of 12
United States v. Deontay McDonald, 15-cr-20201

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2017, an employee of the United States 

Attorney’s Office filed the attached document with the ECF system which will send 

notice to 

Maria Mannarino, attorney for Deontay McDonald.

s/A. Tare Wigod

A. Tare Wigod

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

tare.wigod@usdoj.gov

(313) 226-9191

P58479

Case 2:15-cr-20201-MOB-MKM ECF No. 270, PageID.1465 Filed 01/31/17 Page 12 of 12