IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 )CAUSE NO: 1:15-cr-61

v. )

 )

RONALD WARD, )

 )

Defendant. )

---------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING HELD

OCTOBER 7, 2016, BEFORE THE 

HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE GOVERNMENT: LOVITA MORRIS KING, AUSA

DEBORAH LEONARD, AUSA

3128 Federal Building 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 

FOR THE DEFENDANT: NIKOS NAKOS, ESQ.

126 West Columbia, Suite 200 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 

ALSO PRESENT: The Defendant in person 

Jaime Klopfenstein, USPO 

TINA GALLUCCI, RMR, CRR, FCRR

CERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTER

1300 South Harrison Street

Suite 2105

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

tina_gallucci@innd.uscourts.gov

(260) 423-3060

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 1 of 28
002

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held on 

October 7, 2016, in open court, with the defendant appearing 

in person and with his counsel:) 

THE CLERK: All rise.

THE COURT: Please be seated. We're on the record

this morning in the case of the United States of America

against Mr. Ronald Ward, under cause 1:15-cr-61. This matter

is scheduled today for sentencing for Mr. Ward.

The Government is appearing by Assistant United States

Attorneys, Ms. Lovita Morris King and Ms. Deborah Leonard.

Mr. Ward is present in the courtroom in person, and also by

his attorney, Attorney Nikos Nakos.

Also participating in this hearing is the United States

Probation Officer assigned to Mr. Ward's case, Miss Jaime

Klopfenstein.

Now, during this hearing, I may need to ask Mr. Ward some

questions, and he may also wish to make a statement on his own

behalf. So before we begin, Mr. Ward, if I could ask you to

please stand, and raise your right hand to be sworn.

(Whereupon, the defendant was sworn.)

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: You may go ahead and be seated now.

Mr. Ward, do you understand that now being under oath that

if you answer any of my questions falsely, or if you knowingly

make any false statements, that your false answers or

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 2 of 28
003

statements may later be used against you in another

prosecution for perjury or for making a false statement?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right.

Now, on August 19th, 2016, the Court adjudged Mr. Ward

guilty on his plea of guilty to Count 4 of the indictment,

which charged him with filing a false tax return in violation

of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 287.

Mr. Ward pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement,

which was filed into the record on July 28th, 2016, as docket

entry 65.

The Court will address the plea agreement a little later

in this proceeding, as it contains some important terms for

the Court to consider.

The Court received from the United States Probation

Officer a written presentence investigation report that was

prepared on September 23rd, 2016, and revised on October 4th,

2016, together with addenda.

I've studied that report and the addenda in advance of

today's hearing. Counsel, let me confirm with you each in

turn at this time that you likewise received the presentence

report and the addenda, Ms. Morris King or Ms. Leonard for the

government?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Nakos, for your client?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 3 of 28
004

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Yes, we have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And Mr. Nakos, were you given ample

opportunity to file objections with regard to the report?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Ward, let me ask you, sir, did you have sufficient

opportunity to review the presentence report, and the addenda,

and to discuss the contents of those documents with your

lawyer sometime prior to today's hearing?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: All right. The presentence report, and

the addenda have been filed in the record under seal. It's

directed that if an appeal is taken, counsel on appeal shall

be permitted access to the sealed report. It's further

directed that counsel on appeal are not permitted access to

the recommendation section of that report, which was docketed

separately.

Now, the first addendum to the presentence report

indicates that there are no factual issues in dispute.

Counsel, at this time, let me just confirm there are no

factual issues with regard to the presentence report. Ms.

Morris King, is that correct, for the Government?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: That's correct, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Nakos, is that correct for your

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 4 of 28
005

client?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Yes, Your Honor, that's

correct.

THE COURT: There being no objections to the factual

statements contained in the presentence report, the Court

adopts those statements as its findings of fact.

Now, the addendum to the presentence report indicates that

there were 2 legal issues in dispute. Mr. Nakos, having now

received the Probation Officer's response regarding the

guideline provisions that were used to determine the base

offense level, let me ask you, do you still -- does your

client still object to the base offense level used in

paragraph 28?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: No, ma'am, we withdraw that

objection.

THE COURT: All right. We'll show the withdrawal of

that objection. 

Let me ask with regard to the second objection that Mr.

Ward should not have been assessed 3 criminal history points

for each of the convictions set forth in paragraphs 47 and 52,

does your client want to maintain his objection with regard to

that calculation?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: No, ma'am, he does not.

THE COURT: All right. Is that likewise withdrawn?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Yes, ma'am.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 5 of 28
006

THE COURT: All right. We'll show the withdrawal of

that objection.

Then, there was a third objection, but that went to an

issue of one of the conditions of supervised release, and the

Court will address that a little later in this proceeding.

So with that, then, the Court adopts the Probation

Officer's conclusions contained in the presentence report, and

finds that the guideline range set forth in the presentence

report is the range that is advised for this defendant.

Counsel, have we addressed all matters that relate

directly to the calculation of the advisory guidelines, Ms.

Morris King?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Nakos, for your client?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Yes, ma'am, we have.

THE COURT: All right.

The application of the advisory guidelines results in the

following: This involves a total offense level of 12, a

criminal history category of 6, a range of months of

imprisonment between 30 to 37 months. There is no eligibility

for probation. There is a range for supervised release of

between 1 to 3 years. There is a range for a fine between

$3,000 to $30,000. Restitution would be in the amount of

$48,311, and there would be a special assessment of $100.

Let me just doublecheck something. One moment.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 6 of 28
007

Counsel, are these calculations correct, Ms. Morris King?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And Mr. Nakos?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: They are, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, the plea agreement contains terms

that the Court must now consider. First, Mr. Ward entered a

guilty plea to Count 4 of the indictment in return for the

dismissal of Counts One, Two and Three. The conduct charged

in Counts One, Two and Three was considered relevant conduct,

and taken into account in the guideline calculation.

Additionally, Guideline Section 3D1.2D pursuant to that,

the counts would have been grouped together, resulting in the

same total offense level.

Accordingly, Count 4 adequately reflects the seriousness

of Mr. Ward's actual offense behavior, and accepting the plea

agreement and dismissing Counts One, Two and Three will not

undermine the statutory purposes of sentencing or the

sentencing guidelines.

Now, the defendant and the Government have also agreed

that Mr. Ward should be sentenced to 12 months and 1 day of

imprisonment. The Court may accept this binding term of

imprisonment only if it finds that the agreed sentence is

within the applicable guideline range or that it departs for

justifiable reasons. Here, the agreed term is outside the

applicable guideline range of 30 to 37 months.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 7 of 28
008

At this time, I'm going to give counsel for both sides and

Mr. Ward the opportunity to present to the Court any statement

or argument or basis for the Court to consider in determining

whether or not there are justifiable reasons for this binding

sentence.

If I could ask you, Mr. Nakos, and your client to come up

to the podium at this time, I'll hear first from the

Government, but wait until you come up to the podium.

All right. Ms. Morris King, would you want to present the

Court with the Government's view of the basis justified or

providing reasons for this departure on the sentence?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: Yes, Your Honor.

Having earlier discussed with the Court and counsel in an

earlier pretrial conference, the Government has some

litigative risks associated with this case. We can speak in

light of a particular witness that was out of state, in Texas

at the time, and medical issues had developed with her mother,

Your Honor. And so for those reasons, we believe that the

recommended 12 months and 1 day is an appropriate sentence in

this case.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Nakos, anything on behalf of your client that would

add for the Court's consideration justifiable reasons?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Just briefly, Your Honor.

First of all, I would concur with the Government's

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 8 of 28
009

presentation justifying their justifiable reasons.

Also, Judge, I think another reason, at least from the

defense point of view, that because of his young age of

incarceration, approximate age of 18 years old until just a

few years ago, Mr. Ward lacked any formal training in the tax

field, and the training that he did, as is evident by other

indictments in this court, certainly wasn't the best education

and preparation. And with that, Judge, I think that's another

reason that the Court can find that it's justified to follow,

in my view.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ward, at this time, I'm

going to give you the opportunity to make any statement to

this Court for its consideration of reasons that you believe

justify the Court sentencing you to this agreed term of 12

months and 1 day.

THE DEFENDANT: Uh --

THE COURT: Any mitigating reasons that you believe

the Court should sentence you at that?

THE DEFENDANT: I feel like that I got employed by a

tax office, and I was informed how to prepare taxes a certain

way without knowing the negligence in the tax field, so I

prepared them the way I was informed how to prepare them, and

I did it. To my knowledge now, it was the wrong way to

prepare taxes, so I'm accepting responsibility for my actions

of preparing taxes wrong.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 9 of 28
010

THE COURT: I'll give you an opportunity, Mr. Nakos

and Mr. Ward, to address the Court a little bit later as we

proceed in this sentencing and to give Mr. Ward the

opportunity to address the friends and family members who are

here in support of him today. But I appreciate these

statements for my consideration.

For the reasons just presented to the Court, that is

concerns with regard to litigation risks and also the concerns

with regard to the defendant's criminal history and his

personal history characteristics, the Court accepts the plea

agreement. The Court realizes that this case in itself is not

a violent offense. The defendant, Mr. Ward, does need to pay

the restitution that's going to be a component of the

sentence, and a longer sentence would not add more to the

deterrent effect to prevent him from doing this kind of --

engaging in this kind of criminal activity again. It also

provides a more tailored approach to sentencing as well as

will the conditions of supervision that will be an added

component to his sentence. So for all of those reasons, the

Court will accept the plea agreement.

Let me just point out that with regard to the remaining

issue of the terms and conditions of supervised release, the

Court will discuss that further at the appropriate time in

this sentence.

Having now accepted the plea agreement, Mr. Ward, let me

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 10 of 28
011

ask you, sir, do you understand that today's judgment that

will be entered in your case will show that Counts One, Two

and Three of the indictment against you will be dismissed, and

that you'll be sentenced now to a term of imprisonment of 12

months and 1 day?

THE DEFENDANT: That's correct.

THE COURT: Did the Government wish to move for the

dismissal of those counts at this time, Ms. Morris King? 

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: Yes, Your Honor, the

Government so moves.

THE COURT: So the Court grants the Government's

Motion to Dismiss Counts One, Two and Three of the indictment

against Mr. Ward at this time.

Now, let me ask you, Mr. Nakos, was there any further

argument you wished to present with regard to the proposed

conditions that would apply to your client's supervised

release other than what has already been presented as

discussed in the addendum to the presentence report, which was

your client's concern with regard to a condition that would

involve possibly being recommended into a drug abuse program?

I'll hear from you now.

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Thank you. On October the 1st

of this year, I traveled to the Allen County confinement

facility and discussed the contents of the pretrial

conference, which was conducted the previous -- earlier in the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 11 of 28
012

week, that week. And I informed Mr. Ward that because he was

ordered into a halfway house, then, in his Ohio case, as a

result of his testing positive, the Court felt that it would

be necessary for some time for rehabilitation efforts, and we

understand the Court's rationale.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

Is the objection to that proposed condition being

withdrawn?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Yes, we are.

THE COURT: Mr. Ward? Mr. Ward?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Because I was going to ask you, Mr. Ward,

too, with regard to any of these other proposed conditions of

your supervised release that you're going to need to live with

and abide by, did you have any questions with regard to any of

them or other concerns with regard to any of them?

THE DEFENDANT: No, I don't.

THE COURT: All right.

And just let me confirm again what Mr. Nakos has said that

you did have an opportunity to read through the Court's notice

of all those proposed conditions --

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: -- of supervised release? All right.

Were there any concerns or issues with regard to the

Court's proposed conditions of supervised release from the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 12 of 28
013

Government, Ms. Morris King?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Ward, let me ask you now, do you

agree with everything that your lawyer has said and done on

your behalf in representing you in your case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Let me ask -- go back to Mr. Nakos, was

there anything else you wanted to present to the Court or

argue with regard to the sentence to be imposed on your

client?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Judge, if this is the

appropriate time to make my record with the projected out

date, then yes, I would like to add something.

THE COURT: You may do so.

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Thank you. Judge, as was

discussed at the pretrial conference prior to the sentencing,

the Court informed both the Government attorneys and defense

attorney that it was to be determined by the Bureau of Prisons

and that there were other remedies available. I did follow

the remedy that was provided by the Bureau of Prisons. I

wrote a letter to the Bureau of Prisons in Grand Prairie,

Texas asking them to recalculate the projected out date as of

October 22nd, 2016, as Mr. Ward and I both believe, using the

dates contained in Ms. Klopfenstein's presentence report, on

December 9th, 2015 being his first date of incarceration and

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 13 of 28
014

no other cases being given any time credit during that time

period of his incarceration from December 9th, 2015 to the

present, that his projected out date should, in fact, be

October 15th, 2016.

THE COURT: All right. And what, if any, further

response was there from --

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: There was no response as of

yet, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: I did speak with the Federal

Defender's office and they did indicate they're a little bit

slow, and they have filed 26 and only one was granted, but we

still wanted to preserve the record.

THE COURT: Right. And the Court appreciates concern

by Mr. Ward with regard to the calculation as to that release

date, but under the sentencing statutes as well as the case

law in this Seventh Circuit, the Sentencing Court cannot make

calculations with regard to that factor into a release date,

or make calculations with regard to what time is being served,

and what time should be credited against an individual

defendant's record. That is within the exclusive province of

the Bureau of Prisons and, in fact, it can be error for the

Court to do such a thing.

And so that's why when Mr. Nakos raised that issue -- and

it's appropriate to be raised by defense counsel on behalf of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 14 of 28
015

a defendant who is concerned about being close to time served

or those issues -- that the Court referenced counsel to go

through the available administrative process to attempt to

contact the Bureau of Prisons to that end.

I know, too, you know, there is some effort that is made

by the U.S. Probation Office to, you know, roughly look at

those timing issues, but again it's not within their province

or authority either. It's up to the Bureau of Prisons. It's

a separate entity.

And so I believe maybe, perhaps, after today's sentencing

and once a judgment is entered in the case, then the Bureau of

Prisons may have that final component to do a final

determination.

But I just wanted the defense and Mr. Ward to understand

why the Court cannot intervene or make a separate calculation

of its own to be binding in a case. It simply cannot.

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: If I may, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly.

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: We had discussed this earlier

again on the 1st at the Allen County confinement facility.

However, just to make the record clear on behalf of Mr. Ward's

position, that upon my receipt of the judgment order,

sentencing order, I will turn around and send it to the Bureau

of Prisons.

THE COURT: That's done within the Court system, too.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 15 of 28
016

So they'll have notice as of today on what the sentence is and

such. Because the copy of that judgment goes into the

electronic system; it goes to all the involved entities.

Let me ask, did the Government have any further comment or

recommendation with regard now to the sentence to be imposed

in this matter, Ms. Morris King?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: Nothing additional,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: And if I didn't ask before, I'm going to

ask now. If I did, there were no concerns by the Government

with regard to any of the Court's proposed conditions?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: That is correct, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I'll state the sentence now,

but I'll give counsel a final opportunity to make any legal

objections before the sentence is finally imposed.

With respect to the conditions of supervision to be

imposed, I find that they reasonably relate to the nature and

circumstances of the offense of conviction, to the history and

characteristics of the defendant and to the purposes of

sentencing other than punishment; that they involve no greater

deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary for the

relevant purposes of sentencing, and that where appropriate,

they are consistent with the policy statements of the

Sentencing Commission.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 16 of 28
017

The reasons supporting the conditions were presented in

this Court's notice and those reasons are incorporated into

the record.

With respect to the term of imprisonment, again, the Court

has accepted the plea agreement including the binding term of

imprisonment.

Before I pronounce the sentence now, let me just ask one

more time, Mr. Ward, was there any further statement you wish

to make to the Court?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Do you wish to make any statement to the

friends and family members who are here in support of you

today?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: It would then be the judgment of the

Court that the defendant, Ronald Ward, be committed to the

custody of the Bureau of Prisons to a term of imprisonment of

12 months and 1 day. The defendant shall be placed on 1 year

of supervised release thereafter.

While the defendant is on supervised release pursuant to

this judgment, the defendant shall comply with the following

conditions as required by 18 U.S.C., Section 3583(d):

The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or

local crime during the period of supervision;

The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 17 of 28
018

substance;

The defendant shall refrain any unlawful use of a

controlled substance;

The defendant shall submit to a drug test within 15 days

of release on supervision;

The defendant shall submit to at least 2 periodic tests

thereafter for use of a controlled substance;

The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA

sample from the defendant, if the collection of such a sample

is authorized pursuant to Section 3 of the DNA Analysis

Backlog Elimination Act of 2002.

The defendant shall comply with the following

discretionary conditions as provided by 18 U.S.C., Sections

3563(B)(1) through 23, and 3583(D).

The defendant shall not knowingly leave the jurisdiction

of the Northern District of Indiana unless granted permission

to leave by the Court or a Probation Officer.

A map of the jurisdiction of the Northern District of

Indiana and its 32 counties can be found at the web site of

the United States Probation and Pretrial Services.

The defendant shall report to the Probation Officer as

reasonably directed by the Court or the Probation Officer.

The defendant shall answer inquiries by a Probation

Officer pertaining to his supervision and notify the Probation

Officer within 72 hours of any change in residence or change

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 18 of 28
019

of employer. This condition does not prevent the defendant

from invoking his 5th Amendment privilege against self

incrimination.

The defendant shall notify the Probation Officer within 72

hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement

officer. The defendant shall permit a Probation Officer to

visit him at his home between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00

p.m. A Probation Officer can make an oral or written request

to the Court to allow for a reasonable alternative time period

or a place for the visit.

The defendant shall make reasonable effort to maintain

employment at a lawful occupation unless excused by the

Probation Officer for acceptable reasons, for example,

schooling, training, childcare, elder care, disability, age,

or serious health condition, or shall pursue a course of study

or vocational training that will equip the defendant for

employment at a lawful occupation.

The defendant shall not meet, communicate or otherwise

interact with a person whom he knows to be engaged, or is

planning to be engaged in criminal activity.

The defendant shall not knowingly possess a firearm,

destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon.

The defendant shall make restitution to the victim of the

offense as follows: The Internal Revenue Service in the

amount of $48,311.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 19 of 28
020

The defendant shall not be employed or seek employment as

a tax return preparer. Additionally, the defendant shall not

practice or seek to practice in front of the Internal Revenue

Service, IRS, as an enrolled agent or otherwise.

The defendant shall comply with the following

discretionary conditions as provided by Guideline Section

5D1.3:

The defendant shall not physically, voluntarily and

intentionally be present at a place that he knows or has

reason to know that controlled substances are illegally sold,

used, manufactured, distributed or administered.

The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as

an informer or a Special Agent of a law enforcement agency

without the permission of the Court.

The defendant shall participate in a program approved by

the United States Probation Office for substance abuse, if

necessary, after evaluation at the time of release.

The defendant shall pay all or part of the costs for

participation in the above program, not to exceed the sliding

fee scale as established by the Department of Health and Human

Services and adopted by this Court as the U.S. Probation

Office determines that the defendant is financially capable of

paying.

Failure to pay, due to financial inability to pay, shall

not be grounds for revocation.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 20 of 28
021

The defendant shall pay the special assessment imposed in

accordance with 18 U.S.C., Section 3013.

The defendant's default on the payment of the special

assessment may result in revocation and penalties being

ordered under 18 U.S.C., Sections 3013(b) and 3613.

The defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new

credit charges or opening additional lines of credit without

approval of the Probation Officer, unless the defendant is in

compliance with the installment payment schedule imposed for

payment of restitution.

The defendant shall provide a Probation Officer with

specific financial information regarding the defendant's

ability to pay restitution upon a written or oral request by a

Probation Officer made to and approved by the Court.

The request must be prompted by the defendant's failure to

comply with the payment schedule, ordered for a period of 60

consecutive days, and the request must describe the specific

financial information needed for determining the defendant's

current ability to pay.

It is further ordered that the defendant shall pay

restitution to the United States District Court Clerk's Office

at 1300 South Harrison Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 46802,

which shall be due immediately to be paid at a minimum rate of

$50 per month commencing 1 month after placement on

supervision until such time as the defendant, victim or

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 21 of 28
022

Government notifies the Court that there has been a material

change in the defendant's ability to pay.

Restitution shall be disbursed to the following victim:

The Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $48,311.

The Court finds that the defendant does not have the

ability to pay interest. The Court will, therefore, waive the

interest requirement in this case.

The Court finds that the defendant does not have the

ability to pay a fine, and waives the imposition of a fine in

this case, due to the defendant's inability to pay.

The Court, however, does order that the defendant pay a

special assessment of $100 to the United States, which shall

be due immediately.

Counsel, let me ask you, each in turn now, whether or not

you know of any reason, other than reasons that have already

been presented into the record why this sentence should not be

imposed as stated; Ms. Morris King for the government?

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Nakos, for your client?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: Then at this time, the Court orders the

sentence be imposed as stated.

Mr. Ward, before we conclude on this hearing, before I

advise you with regard to your appellate rights at this point,

I just want to comment that you're 39 years old now?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 22 of 28
023

THE DEFENDANT: Forty.

THE COURT: Forty now? And you have, you know,

accrued a substantial criminal history, most of it dating back

to the time when you were in Chicago and as a younger man

running with the gang back there. And the Court understands

that. But this added felony, federal felony conviction on

your record just rachets things up for you.

I hope that now at this point in your life, and with all

the obligations that you have to your family -- I understand

your wife is here in support of you today, and one of your

children. And who else is here today?

THE DEFENDANT: My 2 sisters and my brother-in-law.

THE COURT: Say that louder.

THE DEFENDANT: I have 2 sisters and a

brother-in-law.

THE COURT: So, you know, you have family that wants

you to be here with them, and be a part of the family's life

and the children that you have responsibility for. That's why

it's so important that you not come into the criminal justice

system again.

I know you have some unfinished business over with Ohio,

and some of the things that are pending over there. I'm

hopeful, though, that in this year of supervised release with

all those conditions that I've read into the record now, that

you're able to abide by them. Because if you're not, if

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 23 of 28
024

you're not doing all of those things -- and even if you think

some of those conditions, you know, are being problematic for

you, you've not indicated any objections today before the

Court, and understand the reason why potential drug program

might be required or recommended by the Probation Officer. 

If you're able to get through that year without violating

and coming back in front of me, and potentially facing more

jail time, then I think you stand an excellent chance of never

coming back into the system again. Because if you do, the

consequences are huge for you and your family. So I'm

hopeful. With your family here in support of you -- and

believe me, most defendants coming here have nobody here for

them. But you've got a lot going for you, and I hope you make

good on your determination to go forward.

You said you're interested in maybe becoming a paralegal?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: And that's certainly an avenue that

remains open for you and given your background and experience

both in and out of the system, you would have -- bring a lot

to that position in order to advise others. So I'm hopeful

that you're able to do that. The consequences are dire if you

do not.

So with that said, let me advise you now, Mr. Ward, that

you have heard the judgment of the Court imposing sentence on

you. Pursuant to Rule 32(J)(1) of the Federal Rules of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 24 of 28
025

Criminal Procedure, you're advised that you can appeal your

conviction in this case if you believe that your guilty plea

was somehow unlawful or involuntary, or if there is some other

fundamental defect in the proceeding that was not waived by

your guilty plea.

You also have a statutory right to appeal your sentence

under certain circumstances, particularly, if you think the

sentence is contrary to law. However, a defendant may waive

those rights as part of a plea agreement, and you have entered

into a plea agreement in which you waived your right to appeal

the conviction itself on any ground or to contest the sentence

or the manner in which it was determined or imposed.

Such waivers are generally enforceable. But if you

believe the waiver is unenforceable, you can present that

theory to the Court of Appeals.

With few exceptions, any Notice of Appeal must be filed

within 14 days of judgment being entered in your case. If you

want to file an appeal, and if you are unable to pay the cost

of an appeal, you may apply for leave to appeal informa

pauperis, which means you may be able to pursue an appeal at

no cost to you. If you so request, the Clerk of the Court

will prepare and file a Notice of Appeal on your behalf.

Mr. Ward, do you understand your appellate rights?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Mr. Nakos, I'm required to remind you of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 25 of 28
026

your duty to perfect a timely appeal of this sentence, should

your client wish to do so. Furthermore, pursuant to Circuit

Rule 51, you are responsible for the continued representation

of your client on appeal, unless specifically relieved of that

duty by the Court of Appeals upon a Motion to Withdraw for

good cause.

Finally, all requests for the appointment of counsel on

appeal must be taken to the Court of Appeals, as this Trial

Court does not have the authority to grant or deny those

requests.

Now, after the conclusion of this hearing, Miss

Klopfenstein will meet with Mr. Ward and verbally explain and

provide him with a written copy of the conditions of

supervised release.

Mr. Ward, during the time period you're on supervised

release, you can always submit a written request to the Court

for modification of one or more of the non-mandatory

conditions if you believe that there has been a change in --

substantial change in your circumstances in life. That kind

of request can also come from the Probation Officer for the

Court to modify your conditions. Such a request may require a

hearing, though, before the Court again.

With that, let me ask counsel in turn, are there any other

matters that we need to set into this record with regard to

the sentence imposed on Mr. Ward, Ms. Morris King?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 26 of 28
027

ATTORNEY LOVITA MORRIS KING: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Nakos, for your client?

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: Then at this time, the Court is going to

remand Mr. Ward back to the custody of the United States

Marshal Service to await or to serve the remainder on his

sentence and good luck to you sir, going forward.

We're concluded on this matter.

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.

ATTORNEY NIKOS NAKOS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE CLERK: All rise.

* * *

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 27 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER

I hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings is true 

and correct, as taken down and transcribed to the best of my 

ability, with the aid of realtime computer-aided 

transcription and/or transcriptionist. 

 s/ Tina M. Gallucci__________________ 

 Tina M. Gallucci, RMR, CRR, FCRR

 United States District Court Reporter

Certificate applies only to Original Transcript hereof,

and does not apply to any copies of this, whether Xerox 

or computerized.

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00061-TLS-SLC document 89 filed 02/27/17 page 28 of 28