IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

 : Case No: 2:17-CR-192 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON 

 : 

GREGORY R. LEE : 

GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING 

 The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits its Memorandum 

in Aid of Sentencing, as ordered by the Court. 

BACKGROUND

 On September 14, 2017, the defendant, Gregory R. Lee, entered a plea of guilty pursuant 

to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to an Information that charged him with using a minor to 

engage in sexually explicit activity for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such 

activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the parties have 

agreed that a term of incarceration of 262 months followed by at least 20 years of Supervised 

Release is the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s offense. 

The parties agreed to a factual statement of the offense conduct in support of the 

defendant’s guilty plea, which detailed the defendant’s involvement with a 15-year-old female 

who was a student of the defendant’s. The defendant took and instructed the girl to take 

numerous photographs that focused on the child’s nude genitalia or depicted the girl engaged in 

masturbation. He also engaged in sexual acts with the child on numerous occasions. Finally, the 

parties agreed that the defendant had previously received sexually suggestive and/or explicit 

photographs of another minor female student. 
2 

 The final Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was disclosed by the Probation 

Office on November 30, 2017, and the defendant filed a sentencing memorandum on January 4, 

2018. Sentencing in this matter is scheduled for January 18, 2018. 

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

As calculated in the PSR, the advisory sentencing guideline range for the defendant’s 

offense is 360 months, based on a total offense level of 42 and a criminal history category I. 

Neither party has raised any objection to this calculation. The probation officer has noted several 

factors that the Court may consider in determining whether a deviation from the guideline range 

is appropriate, and has recommended the 262-month sentence agreed to by the parties, followed 

by a lifetime term of supervised release and a within-guidelines fine of $50,000. 

SENTENCING FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINE CALCULATION

After Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts are to engage in a 

three-step sentencing procedure. Courts are first to determine the applicable guidelines range, 

then consider whether a departure from that range is appropriate, and finally, consider the 

applicable guidelines range—along with all of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—to 

determine what sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50 (2007); Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). The central command to district courts in imposing a 

sentence is to fashion one that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to meet the goals set 

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Section 3553(a) further delineates seven factors the Court must consider in fashioning an 

appropriate sentence: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense/history and characteristics 

of the defendant; (2) the statutory purposes of sentencing; (3) the kinds of sentences available; 

(4) the kinds of sentences and sentencing ranges as set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines; (5) 
3 

Sentencing Guidelines policy statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing 

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

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

I. Calculation and Possible Departure 

In this case, the parties are in agreement that the Probation Officer has correctly 

calculated that advisory guideline range applicable to the defendant’s offense. The parties are 

further in agreement that there are no bases under the guidelines for departure from the 

applicable guideline range. 

II. Section 3553(a) Factors 

Notwithstanding the Sixth Circuit’s statement in United States v. Perez, 464 Fed. Appx. 

467, 469 (6th Cir. 2012), that a defendant who enters a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement waives 

the right to be sentenced “pursuant to the advisory guideline range and the § 3553(a) factors”, the 

government submits that consideration of those factors supports imposition of the sentence 

agreed to by the parties. 

The defendant’s offense is undoubtedly serious and involves a significant violation of the 

trust placed in him as a teacher. The defendant engaged in an ongoing sexual and romantic 

relationship with a student who was more than 30 years his junior and who could not possibly 

comprehend the ramifications of the relationship in which she was engaging. While she may 

have fully reciprocated – and perhaps even initiated – the “flirtatious” interactions that led to the 

defendant’s offense, she was a child. As an adult, the defendant knew full well where his 

involvement with this child was headed, and it was his duty to prevent it. He failed to do so. His 

history of inappropriate interactions with other students indicates that he did not stop this 

damaging and illegal liaison because he has an long-standing sexual interest in minor females. 
4 

Thus, the crime that the defendant has committed calls for a lengthy term of 

incarceration. As pointed out by the defendant however, the sentence agreed upon by the parties 

will result in the defendant being at least 71 years of age at the time he is released, and at least 91 

years old before he is released from Court supervision. The defendant further has a long history 

of being a dedicated employee, and although he has repeatedly crossed appropriate boundaries 

with his students, he has also retained the support of several of his prior students. He also has 

the love and support of his family, which the government believes will help him reintegrate into 

society upon his release. All of these factors support the downward deviation represented by the 

parties’ agreed sentence. 

In light of all of these considerations, the government submits that a sentence of 262 

months of incarceration would satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing, in that it would 

protect the public, provide adequate deterrence, and appropriately reflect the seriousness of the 

defendant’s particular offense. Consideration of the specific facts of the case and this 

defendant’s individual background and characteristics also indicate that such a sentence would 

not create unwarranted sentencing disparities. 

Finally, the government concurs with the Probation Officer’s finding that the defendant 

does have the ability to pay a fine. However, in light of the issues discussed in the defendant’s 

sentencing memorandum, the government suggests that a fine below the guideline range is more 

appropriate. 
5 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court accept 

the parties stipulated sentencing agreement and impose a sentence of 262 months of 

incarceration, followed by at least 20 years of Supervised Release. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN 

 United States Attorney 

 

s/Heather A. Hill 

 HEATHER A. HILL (6291633) 

 Assistant U.S. Attorney 

s/Jennifer M. Rausch 

 JENNIFER M. RAUSCH (6291633) 

 Special Assistant United States Attorney 

 303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200 

 Columbus, Ohio 43215 

 (614)469-5715 

 Fax: (614)469-5653 

 Heather.Hill@usdoj.gov 

 jmrausch@franklincountyohio.gov 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served via electronically this 

 9th day of January, 2018, upon Steven S. Nolder, counsel for the defendant. 

 s/Heather A. Hill 

HEATHER A. HILL (6291633) 

 Assistant United States Attorney