UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CR-5-TLS

)

SHEILA ROBINSON )

OPINION AND ORDER

The Defendant, Sheila Robinson, pled guilty to making a false claim in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 287. An officer with the United States Probation Office prepared a Presentence

Investigation Report (PSR) prior to the Defendant’s sentencing. According to the PSR, under the

United States Sentencing Guidelines, the Defendant’s total offense level is 15, and her criminal

history category is I, resulting in a guideline calculation of 18–24 months of imprisonment.

On August 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a sealed Sentencing Memorandum [ECF No.

64] requesting a variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Defendant requests a downward

variance of four levels, resulting in a total offense level of 11 and a guideline range of 8–14

months. A four-level variance would also place the Defendant in Zone B of the Sentencing

Table, making her eligible for probation. The Defendant asks to be sentenced to 8 months of

home detention and 1 year of probation. On August 24, 2015, the Government filed a sealed

Response [ECF No. 68] deferring to the Court’s discretion as to the appropriate sentence, but

asking that if the Court grants the Defendant’s request for probation, that the Court sentence the

Defendant to 5 years of probation. For the reasons stated in this Opinion and Order, the Court

will grant the Defendant’s request for a downward variance. 
ANALYSIS

When sentencing a defendant, the district court “must first calculate the Guidelines range,

and then consider what sentence is appropriate for the individual defendant in light of the

statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 351

(2009); see United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426, 441 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Nelson, and setting

forth the two-step process that a sentencing court must engage in to determine a defendant’s

sentence). When calculating the guideline range, “[a] district court may rely on facts asserted in

the PSR if the PSR is based on sufficiently reliable information.” United States v. Rollins, 544

F.3d 820, 838 (7th Cir. 2008). “The defendant bears the burden of proving that the PSR is

inaccurate or unreliable,” and if he offers no evidence to question the PSR’s accuracy, the Court

may rely on it. Id.

Here, neither party contests the guideline calculations pursuant to the PSR. The

Guidelines assign 16 levels as the base offense level for the Defendant’s offense. U.S.S.G.

§2T1.1(a) and §2T4.1(F). The probation officer added 2 levels because the Defendant failed to

report or to correctly identify the source of income exceeding $10,000 in any year from criminal

activity. §2T1.1(b)(1), resulting in an adjusted offense level of 18. The adjusted offense level was

lowered by 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility and for assisting authorities in the

investigation or prosecution of the Defendant’s own misconduct, § 3E1.1(a–b), resulting in a

total offense level of 15. Combining this offense level with the Defendant’s criminal history

category of I results in a guideline range of 18–24 months of imprisonment.

2
A. § 3553(a) Request for a Downward Variance 

In imposing a sentence, § 3553(a) requires a court to consider the nature and

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, and impose a

sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing:

adequately capturing the seriousness of the offense, providing just punishment, promoting

respect for the law, affording adequate deterrence, protecting the public, and rehabilitating the

defendant. In making this determination, a district court may not presume that the Guidelines

sentence is the correct one. Nelson, 555 U.S. at 352; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351

(2007). Ultimately, a district court must make an independent determination, taking into account

the types of sentences available, the other relevant § 3553(a) factors, and the arguments of the

parties. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50 (2007). “[A] district court can vary

categorically from every guideline, including the career offender guidelines.” United States v.

Redmond, 667 F.3d 863, 876 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th

Cir. 2010)).

The Defendant argues that her background and personal characteristics justify a four-level

variance from the applicable guideline range. In her sealed Motion, the Defendant provides a

detailed description of her personal history, including her childhood experiences and healthrelated issues. Upon consideration of the above § 3553(a) factors, the Court finds that the

Defendant’s request for a four-level downward variance is well-taken. Given the history and

characteristics of the Defendant, the Court finds that a guideline range of 8–14 months of

imprisonment is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.

This determination is based on the evidence in the record thus far, and on the factors highlighted

3
by the Defendant and the Government. The Court has not yet heard from the Defendant, and she

may wish to make a statement on her own behalf in mitigation of punishment. Indeed, she is

entitled to make such a statement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Therefore, the Court

reserves a determination of the appropriate term of imprisonment until after the Defendant has

had an opportunity to address the Court.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s request for a four-level

variance, but WITHHOLDS determining the sentence to impose until the time of the sentencing

hearing and after providing the Defendant an opportunity to address the Court. The sentencing

hearing scheduled for September 9, 2015, at 11:00 AM, is CONFIRMED.

SO ORDERED on September 2, 2015.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4