Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum pg. 1

Paul Hood, OSB 132271

1001 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: 541-513-7545

paul@paulhoodlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Travis Cox

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVIS COX,

 Defendant.

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-24

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING 

MEMORANDUM

Please accept this memorandum on behalf of Travis Cox, who is to be 

sentenced on August 7, 2017. Mr. Cox pleaded guilty to engaging in a conspiracy 

to impede officers of the United States. The statute has no mandatory minimum 

and a six-year maximum. Mr. Cox has no objection to the Presentence 

Investigation Report prepared by United States Probation Officer Theresa Fuchs. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2185 Filed 07/31/17 Page 1 of 6
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum pg. 2

Legal Framework

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, rather than mandatory. United 

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 249-50 (2005). The overarching statutory charge 

for a district court is to ‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary’ to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, 

and provide just punishment; to afford adequate deterrence; to protect the public; 

and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, 

medical, care or other correctional treatment. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 988, 

991 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)). 

Defendant’s Recommendation

Travis Cox is a hard-working and personable young man who has accepted 

responsibility for his conduct. At the time of the occupation of the Malheur 

National Wildlife Refuge, Mr. Cox was twenty years old. While some defendants 

travelled from outside of Oregon to occupy the refuge, Mr. Cox is from central 

Oregon. The occupation was—relatively speaking—in his own backyard. After

turning himself in on a warrant, Mr. Cox spent 51 days in custody on this case

before being placed on pretrial release on June 2, 2016. He has done very well on 

pretrial release. He is employed and has strong support among family and loved 

ones. The Government asks the Court to place Mr. Cox on probation with home 

detention along with credit for the time he was incarcerated against the duration of 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2185 Filed 07/31/17 Page 2 of 6
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum pg. 3

that home detention. In light of his youth, the absence of criminal convictions

prior to this case, his exemplary conduct on pretrial release, his nearly two months 

in custody prior to being placed on pretrial release, and the immense support he has 

from his family and loved ones, this sentencing memorandum recommends that 

Mr. Cox receive credit for time served and a one-year period of supervised release

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3583.

The Presentence Investigation Report and Additional Information

The Presentence Investigation Report (hereinafter “Report”) provides 

several important details about Mr. Cox. The Report was originally prepared on 

October 24, 2016 and revised on November 17, 2016 and May 11, 2017. It is 

useful to elaborate on some of the details provided in the report and to update a 

few other items. In the interests of privacy, the names of individuals and 

institutions have generally been omitted from this memorandum. Those names are 

already in the Report or can be made known to the Court during the sentencing 

hearing. 

When the Report was originally prepared, Mr. Cox was employed at a pizza 

restaurant. See Report at paragraph 71. That employer was aware of the present 

case and permitted Mr. Cox to return to employment after pretrial release was 

granted. More recently, Mr. Cox took a better paying job with a construction

company. That employer is also aware of the present case. Both of these are 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2185 Filed 07/31/17 Page 3 of 6
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum pg. 4

relatively small businesses, meaning the bosses know the workers. Both of these 

employers recognize that Mr. Cox is a hard-working and generally responsible

young man. Because they are familiar with him and his character, they were 

willing to hire him even though they were aware of this case.

The Report also discusses Mr. Cox’s relationship with his girlfriend. See 

Report at paragraph 66. They are now engaged, with a wedding date in late 

August of next year. Mr. Cox’s fiancée has been aware of this case from the 

beginning, as have her parents. They are a law-abiding family from Mr. Cox’s 

community. Like Mr. Cox’s past and present employers, they recognize that Mr. 

Cox has made a significant mistake, but that the mistake alone does not fully 

define who Travis Cox is. 

In addition, as the Report explains, Mr. Cox had a fairly normal upbringing. 

Report at paragraphs 63 and 64. His father is a retired paramedic. His mother 

works for a fire department. At the time of the report his sister had received 

licensing as an emergency medical technician. She has since become a paramedic. 

Mr. Cox has a very good relationship with his mother and sister, though as the 

Report notes he has little contact with his father. In June of 2015, after 29 years of 

marriage, Travis Cox’s father left his mother for another woman. This was not a 

marriage that had been on a slow and obvious decline. This was a sudden and 

unexpected end to the family life that Travis Cox had grown up with. No one 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2185 Filed 07/31/17 Page 4 of 6
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum pg. 5

contends that the sudden and unexpected divorce caused the criminal conduct in 

this case, but it is at least somewhat notable that Travis Cox has no prior criminal 

convictions and that his conduct in this case arose during a time of significant 

disruption in his family life. 

The Competing Recommendations

The relevant sentencing guideline factors are not in dispute in this case. The

underlying criminal conduct is also not in dispute. The difference between the 

recommendations presented by the parties is not large. The Government asks this 

Court to place Travis Cox on two-years of probation with a period of home 

detention with credit for time in custody against the time on home detention. The 

Defendant recommends time served and a one-year period of supervised release. 

While the Government supports credit for time served in a fashion, the 

Government recommends credit against home detention on a one-day-for-one-day 

basis. This seems like an inadequate calculation for the simple reason that one day 

in custody is worse than one day on home detention. In fact, fifty-one days in

custody should generally be regarded as a greater punishment and deterrence than 

six months of home detention. For that simple and straightforward reason and 

because of the factors previously discussed, this memorandum recommends time 

served with one-year of supervised release. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2185 Filed 07/31/17 Page 5 of 6
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum pg. 6

Undersigned defense counsel has represented hundreds of criminal 

defendants and recognizes in Travis Cox the same qualities that his family 

members, loved ones, and employers have recognized. Mr. Cox made a mistake. 

It was a significant mistake, and Mr. Cox knows that. He has accepted 

responsibility for his conduct, and he has worked and continues to work to move 

forward on a better path. 

DATED this 1st day of August 2017. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Hood 

PAUL HOOD, OSB No. 132271

Attorney for Travis Cox

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2185 Filed 07/31/17 Page 6 of 6