PAGE 1 OF 6 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—Geoffrey Stanek

United States v. Bundy, et al., USDC Oregon Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

Benjamin T. Andersen

101 SW Madison #9068

Portland, Oregon 97207

t. 503.860.2531

bta@btandersen.com

Attorney for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

Geoffrey STANEK,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—

Geoffrey Stanek

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2016, Geoff Stanek was arraigned. ECF 34.

On June 15, 2016, Mr. Stanek entered a plea of guilty to the felony charge of 

Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States. ECF 702.

On October 27, 2016, a jury acquitted seven members of the alleged conspiracy, 

including the putative leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy, on all relevant counts. ECF 1508.

On February 6, 2017, three members of the conspiracy entered pleas of guilty to 

the misdemeanor charge of trespassing, and all felony charges were dismissed against 

those defendants. ECF 1820, 1825, 1827. These defendants were sentenced to one year 

of probation and $1000 in restitution. ECF 1837, 1868, 1870.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2142 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 6
PAGE 2 OF 6 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—Geoffrey Stanek

United States v. Bundy, et al., USDC Oregon Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

On March 10, 2017, a jury returned verdicts of guilt against two defendants on 

charge of Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, and returned verdicts of not 

guilty against two other defendants on the same charge. ECF 2010-13.

Many defendants moved to withdraw their guilty pleas at one point or another. Mr. 

Stanek did not.

II. MR. STANEK SHOULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO A HARSHER PENALTY THAN 

THOSE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE ALLOWED TO PLEAD TO A MISDEMEANOR

18 USC § 3553(a)(6) directs a sentencing court to avoid unwarranted sentencing 

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar 

conduct. This court does not have the power to sua sponte reduce Mr. Stanek’s charge to 

a misdemeanor, and the US Attorney has declined Mr. Stanek’s request to reduce his postplea, pre-sentence charge to a misdemeanor. §3553(a)(6), however, suggests that this 

court should impose a sentence no more severe than the sentences imposed on other 

defendants, some of whom have worse records and arguably have more culpability in the 

overall offense than Mr. Stanek. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 599-600 (2007) 

(discussing application of §3553(a)(6) in relation to co-defendant sentences).

Undersigned counsel’s review of the record indicates that Mr. Stanek’s conduct in 

the above-captioned case is of a no more severe nature than that of co-defendants Sean 

Anderson, Sandra Anderson and Dylan Anderson, all of whom were allowed by the 

government to plead guilty to misdemeanors prior to the second trial and were sentenced 

to one year of probation and $1000 of restitution. ECF 1837, 1868, 1879. Unlike Mr 

Stanek, those three defendants were present from the beginning of the standoff, and were 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2142 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 6
PAGE 3 OF 6 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—Geoffrey Stanek

United States v. Bundy, et al., USDC Oregon Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

involved in the initial takeover. See PSR at ¶ 26. Mr. Stanek was allowed by the FBI to 

leave on his own accord, whereas Dylan Anderson was arrested at the Refuge on January 

27, 2016. PSR at ¶ 37. Sean and Sandra Anderson did not voluntarily leave and instead

held out in an armed standoff at the refuge until February 11, 2016. For those last two 

weeks, Sean Anderson made a variety of violent and specific threats against law 

enforcement that were broadcast on YouTube.

Mr. Stanek, as mentioned above, was not present at the beginning of the takeover, 

and left voluntarily after many of the leaders were arrested. He was arrested without 

incident on February 11 in Forest Grove, OR, while legally open-carrying a pistol.

To avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities in this case, Mr. Stanek asks this Court 

to impose a sentence of one year of probation without the imposition of a term of home 

detention. Other factors at 18 USC §3553(a) support such a sentence, as well.

A. MR. STANEK’S HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS SUPPORT A 

PROBATIONARY SENTENCE

As related in the PSR, Mr. Stanek is an honorably discharged veteran of the US 

Army. He has no prior criminal history. He worked as a security guard after being 

discharged from the Army and was in the process of becoming a firefighter when he 

responded to the Refuge. Since his arrest, he has worked at various jobs but has had some 

difficulty finding employment due to the pending felony conviction.

Mr. Stanek has reported regularly and has not had any significant problems while 

on pretrial release. He is a good candidate to successfully complete a probationary 

sentence.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2142 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 6
PAGE 4 OF 6 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—Geoffrey Stanek

United States v. Bundy, et al., USDC Oregon Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

B. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. STANEK’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE 

OFFENSE SUPPORT A PROBATIONARY SENTENCE

Mr. Stanek went to the Refuge in early January after learning about it from a 

Facebook group that a former coworker had showed him. He had a very vague 

understanding of what was actually happening at the Refuge before travelling out to lend 

support to what he understood was a constitutional protest. A main reason he decided to 

go was that he believed the medic skills that he had learned during his time in the United 

States Army could be of use. As he understood it from Facebook, the situation could 

escalate, and medic skills could be important.

Once he got to the Refuge, Mr. Stanek quickly fell back on his military training. He 

took orders from the leadership that was already set up and fit into the quasi-military

structure that already existed at the Refuge. Once he had joined into that structure, he 

quickly came to feel that he could not abandon his new compatriots. Regardless, he did 

not have enough money for gas to leave anyway, and was too embarrassed to ask for help 

from his family or from others at the Refuge. He did not have any plan on how long he 

intended to stay, but after Ammon Bundy and others were arrested on January 26, Mr. 

Stanek—along with many other people—left the Refuge. The FBI, who controlled entry 

and exit, did not detain Mr. Stanek. Mr. Stanek travelled back home with another person 

who had money for gas but no car.

/////

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2142 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 6
PAGE 5 OF 6 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—Geoffrey Stanek

United States v. Bundy, et al., USDC Oregon Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

C. A FELONY CONVICTION REFLECTS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE 

OFFENSE, WILL PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW, AND WILL PROTECT THE 

PUBLIC FROM FURTHER CRIMES

Mr. Stanek has no prior criminal history. A felony conviction has already affected 

him greatly and will continue to affect him for the rest of his life. Beyond the social stigma 

that attaches to being labeled a felon, Mr. Stanek will no longer be able to exercise his 

Second Amendment right to bear arms, and his ability to vote could be curtailed in certain 

jurisdictions. These are severe punishments. A probationary sentence will also 

substantially limit Mr. Stanek’s general freedoms, much the same as his freedoms have 

been curtailed for the nearly year-and-a-half that he has been supervised on pretrial 

release. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 595-96 (discussing the substantial restriction of liberty 

inherent in a probationary sentence).

There is no indication that Mr. Stanek will perpetrate any further crimes. He was 

the third defendant to accept responsibility for his actions and enter a plea of guilty. ECF 

702. He has shown himself to be consistently responsive to pretrial supervision. A 

probationary sentence would allow him to continue this trend and could potentially 

provide him with the ability for any vocational training in the most effective manner.

III. ONE YEAR OF PROBATION IS SUFFICIENT

Mr. Stanek left the Refuge on his own accord and was peacefully arrested two 

weeks later. He has had no problems on pretrial release and has no prior criminal history. 

He was honorably discharged from the US Army and is a good candidate to successfully 

complete a term of probation. A probationary sentence of one year with no imposition of 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2142 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 6
PAGE 6 OF 6 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM—Geoffrey Stanek

United States v. Bundy, et al., USDC Oregon Case No. 3:16-CR-051-BR-23

any further sanction is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the 

provisions of 18 USC 3553(a)(2).

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of June, 2017.

_______________________________________

Benjamin T. Andersen, OSB 06256

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2142 Filed 06/21/17 Page 6 of 6