IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:17-CR-146-03

 

v. : District Judge Thomas M. Rose

David D. Crabtree,

:

Defendant.

SENTENCING HEARING NOTICE AND ORDER

This case is scheduled for a sentencing hearing on March 8, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in

Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, Dayton, Ohio, before Judge Thomas M. Rose.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) lists the following factors which must be considered in

determining a reasonable sentence in each case:

a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.--The court

shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,

to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this

subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be

imposed, shall consider--

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history

and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed--

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote

respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the

offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

1
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the

defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or

vocational training, medical care, or other correctional

treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established

for--

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the

applicable category of defendant as set forth in the

guidelines--

(I) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to

section 994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject

to any amendments made to such guidelines by act of

Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have

yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into

amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and

(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), are in

effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or

(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised

release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued

by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(3)

of title 28, United States Code, taking into account any

amendments made to such guidelines or policy statements by

act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments

have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission

into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28);

(5) any pertinent policy statement--

(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to

section 994(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, subject to

any amendments made to such policy statement by act of

Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet

to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into

amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and

2
(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect

on the date the defendant is sentenced.

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of

similar conduct; and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

Under the law announced by the Supreme Court on January 12, 2005, in United States v.

Booker, -- U.S. --, 125 S.Ct. 738 -- L.Ed.2d – (2005), the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer

required to be applied, but the guidelines, nevertheless must be considered, together with all of

the other factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The PSI report contains the Probation Officer’s conclusions regarding the application of

the guidelines, and if the parties had any objections to the PSI report or the Probation Officer’s

applications, those objections should have been filed in accordance with Local Rule 32.1© and

will be heard in the same manner as they were heard pre-Booker. Any motions for departures

based on recognized guideline departures should also be filed and will be heard at the sentencing

hearing. In short, the procedures used to determine a correct sentencing guideline range will

continue in the same manner as they existed pre-Booker.

If either party is of the opinion that a reasonable sentence would require a deviation from

the imprisonment range, i.e., a sentence other than a sentencing resulting from an application of

the sentencing guidelines, that party is ordered to file a Sentencing Memorandum, setting forth in

detail the reasons why the imprisonment range under a guideline application should not be

followed in this case, with particular reference to the other factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a).

Any Sentencing Memorandum must be filed no later than seven (7) business days

3
following the final disclosure of the presentence investigation report. If the other party opposes

the Sentencing Memorandum, the opposing party shall file a Response to Sentencing

Memorandum no later than five (5) business days following the receipt of the Sentencing

Memorandum. If the Court desires any further memoranda or a continuation of the sentencing

hearing, the parties will be so notified.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 15, 2017 s/ Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose, Judge 

 United States District Court

4