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

26

27

28

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

MICAH SCHMIT

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Courthouse

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Az Bar No. 014887

Email: gerard.schmit@usdoj.gov Telephone: (520) 620-7300

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff, vs.

Roger Dale GODWIN,

 Defendant.

17-CR-01620-TUC-RCC

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING

MEMORANDUM

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, files this

brief sentencing memorandum. The government incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–

119 of the Presentence Report (PSR) containing the guideline calculations and criminal

and biographical history of the defendant. For the following reasons, the government 

recommends that this Court accept the plea agreement and impose the top end of the 

available range, namely: 84 mo’s imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ supervised release.

For the past twenty years, as methodically but succinctly recounted by the US 

Probation Officer over the span of almost thirty paragraphs (PSR 62-90), the defendant has 

consistently suffered from various personality disorders – nothing less, but quite clearly, 

nothing worse. These have, almost predictably, led him to commit very impulsive and very 

alarming threats of violence which of resulted in multiple, consecutive prison sentences in 

various jurisdictions. His latest letter-writing brings him before the District Court in 

Arizona, facing another lengthy sentencing for threatening officials.

When the parties negotiated the plea agreement in this case, the intent was bifurcated 

Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 64 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

26

27

28

– to add another consecutive prison component as merited atonement for the defendant’s 

most recent threats – but also to add a deterrent element by way of a probation “tail” which 

would carry a far greater range of imprisonment should the defendant violate that 

probation.

1

 The parties now recognize that, while this is common in Arizona state court, 

this is not an option under the federal sentencing guidelines, even if by stipulation of all 

participants. The parties do wish to advocate for the spirit of the plea and ask this Court to 

accept and apply its terms, nonetheless.

Commonly, a defendant will be offered a one count plea. In this case, the 

government deliberately offered only a two count plea with the specific intent of making 

reciprocal adjustments (a) to a probation tail and (b) also to the ceiling of the sentencing 

range, in exchange for admitting to the conduct contained in both Counts 1 & 2. The 

defendant did so, and the government stands by its intended consideration, that is to vary 

downward three levels to 84 months – a modest but reasonable counteroffer. Moreover, 

the 84 month plea-range made available by Count 2 is substantially higher than even the

statutory maximum available for Count 1 (5 years) and clearly demonstrating the 

compromise negotiated and intended by the parties. This intent is also memorialized on 

page four of the plea agreement, as well as in footnote 2 of the agreement.

In addition, for months the defendant requested the opportunity to be able to argue 

for concurrent sentences vis a vis his historical adjudications. After the government’s 

forbiddance (page 4 of the agreement) the defendant ultimately surrendered that option, 

again in exchange for the totality of the terms of the plea agreement, including the 84 month 

cap within the instant agreement.

For all of these reasons, it is both reasonable and also just, that the defendant be 

permitted to avail himself of the terms of the negotiated plea agreement. The government 

 

1 Unlike supervised release violations which typically carry a very limited guideline revocation range of 3-12 months, a probation revocation brings to the judge’s disposal the entire original sentencing range – in this case, 5 years imprisonment.

Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 64 Filed 12/17/18 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

26

27

28

is, however, mindful of the severity of the underlying conduct and, as such, the sentence

imposed today should also be no less than the 84 month cap. The government otherwise 

agrees and adopts the remaining recommendations of the probation department, to wit: 60 

months’ concurrent on Count 1 and 3 years’ supervised release concurrent as to both 

Counts 1 & 2.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 2018.

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Micah Schmit

MICAH SCHMIT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by

other means this 17th day of December, 2018, to:

Thomas Higgins, Esq., Counsel for Defendant

Wayne Becker, USPO

Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 64 Filed 12/17/18 Page 3 of 3