1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT STROUD, 

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.: 3:17 CR 183(1)

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING 

MEMORANDUM

 

Now comes the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 

Attorney, and respectfully provides the following sentencing memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Andrew J. Hunt

Andrew J. Hunt (0073698)

Assistant United States Attorney

200 West Second Street, Suite 600

Dayton, OH 45402

(937) 225-2910

Fax: (937) 225-2564

Andrew.Hunt@usdoj.gov

Case: 3:17-cr-00183-WHR Doc #: 150 Filed: 05/02/19 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 929
2

MEMORANDUM

Beginning by at least on or about September 6, 2016 and continuing through on or about 

June 16, 2017, Defendant Robert Stroud (“Stroud”) conspired with others to possess with intent 

to distribute more than 15 kilograms of cocaine in southern Ohio and elsewhere. (R. 128, Plea 

Agreement, PAGEID# 864-65). On February 4, 2019, Stroud entered a guilty plea to Count One

of the Superseding Indictment, namely “Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 

kilograms or more of cocaine,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846.

The statutory penalties include a minimum term of at least 10 years up to life in prison. The 

parties agreed (“Agreed Sentencing Disposition”) that Stroud should be sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment within a range between one hundred twenty (120) and one hundred fifty-six (156)

months, per Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Id., PAGEID# 861).

In crafting a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court takes into account: 1) 

the nature and circumstances of the offense, and history and characteristics of the defendant, 2) 

the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and provide just 

punishment for the offense, 3) the need to adequately deter criminal behavior, 4) the need to 

protect the public from future crimes of defendant, 5) providing rehabilitative services to 

defendant, 6) the kinds of sentences available, 7) the kinds of sentence and sentencing range 

established by the Sentencing Guidelines for the offense (and any pertinent policy statements), 8) 

restitution needs, and 9) the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among similarly situated 

defendants. The Court may place greater weight upon certain factors as opposed to others.

United States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d 558, 571 (6th Cir. 2012). 

The United States respectfully requests that the Court adopt the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea 

Case: 3:17-cr-00183-WHR Doc #: 150 Filed: 05/02/19 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 930
3

agreement and Agreed Sentencing Disposition. Furthermore, for the reasons that follow, the 

United States believes that a prison sentence at the upper end of the agreed range is appropriate.

Stroud has a history of drug offenses dating back to 1994, and was convicted in 2009 of a 

drug-related firearm crime in United States District Court. (Presentence Report (PSR) ¶¶ 56-57, 

60, 62, 67). Stroud was serving a term of supervised release when he committed the present 

offense. (Id., ¶ 67). Stroud’s role in the offense was aggravated,

1 because he coordinated drug 

deliveries with the supplier and directed Thompkins/Smith regarding the specific delivery of

roughly five kilograms of cocaine outside Chicago. The advisory sentencing guideline range is 

largely encapsulated by the Agreed Sentencing Disposition,2 and a prison sentence within the 

advisory guideline range would tend to treat Stroud like other similarly situated offenders.

3

 

Stroud’s recidivism, his aggravated role in the offense, the inability of prior prison sentences to 

deter him, the safety of the public, and the offense’s seriousness call for a sentence at the upper 

end of the Agreed Sentencing Disposition range.

 

1 See R. 128, Plea Agreement, PageID# 861, 864; R. 99, 8/13/18 Motion to Suppress Hearing, PageID# 683; Govt. 

Motion to Suppress Ex. 5, Audio Recordings; Govt. Motion to Suppress Exs. 6-9, Line Sheets.

2 See PSR ¶ 106.

3 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) is concerned with national sentencing disparities, and the Sentencing Guidelines are “good 

evidence of the national standard.” United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 623, 627 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Case: 3:17-cr-00183-WHR Doc #: 150 Filed: 05/02/19 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 931
4

CONCLUSION

In summary, the United States believes a prison term at the upper end of the Agreed 

Sentencing Disposition range would be sufficient, but not more than necessary to address the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Andrew J. Hunt

Andrew J. Hunt (0073698)

Assistant United States Attorney

200 West Second Street, Suite 600

Dayton, OH 45402

(937) 225-2910

Fax: (937) 225-2564

Andrew.Hunt@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served May 2, 2019, upon Mr. Jon Paul 

Rion, Esq. and Brian K. McDaniel, Esq., via CM/ECF electronic filing.

s/ Andrew J. Hunt

Andrew J. Hunt (007368)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case: 3:17-cr-00183-WHR Doc #: 150 Filed: 05/02/19 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 932