UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-20585

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

PETER HENDRICKSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF SENTENCING

ENHANCEMENTS AND SETTING AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on May 21, 2010 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

At an April 19, 2010 hearing, the Court determined and imposed a sentence on

Defendant Peter Hendrickson following his conviction by a jury on ten counts of filing a

false document with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), in violation of 26 U.S.C. §

7206(1). At the conclusion of this sentencing hearing, however, one matter remained for

the Court’s determination — specifically, the Court reserved the issue of restitution, and

ordered the Government to recalculate a restitution amount that was limited to

Defendant’s wages for the relevant tax years, as well as his wife’s income for those years

in which Defendant and his wife filed jointly.
1

This April 27 telephonic hearing was convened principally to address an issue that was

brought to the Court’s attention following the April 19 sentencing hearing, concerning a

statutory limitation on the Court’s authority to impose consecutive terms of supervised release.

2

To the extent that Defendant complains in his present motion about the Government’s

“eleventh hour” submission of a sentencing memorandum on April 16, 2010, the Court notes that

Defendant’s own sentencing memorandum was submitted only a day earlier, on April 15, 2010. 

It also is worth noting that Defendant did not request an adjournment of the April 19 sentencing

hearing in order to afford him an opportunity to address the issues raised in the Government’s

2

On April 21, 2010, the Government filed a supplemental sentencing memorandum

in which it argues that the appropriate amount of restitution is $15,672.00. At a

telephonic hearing held on April 27, 2010,1

 counsel for Defendant requested an

opportunity to respond to the Government’s supplemental submission, and promised to

file this response by Friday, April 30, 2010. Instead, on May 12, 2010, Defendant filed

an 18-page motion in which he invites the Court to revisit several of its rulings at the

April 19 sentencing hearing, but which addresses only tangentially (at best) the issue of

restitution.

The Court declines Defendant’s invitation. Defendant and his counsel were given

an extensive opportunity at the April 19 sentencing hearing to raise any issues bearing

upon the determination of Defendant’s sentence, and the Court ruled on each such issue

raised by Defendant. In addition, Defendant and his counsel submitted a 26-page

sentencing memorandum prior to the April 19 hearing, in which Defendant challenged

various aspects of the Sentencing Guidelines calculations and sentencing

recommendations set forth in a presentence investigation report prepared by the United

States Probation Department.2

 Having carefully considered these issues raised by
sentencing memorandum. To the contrary, Defendant and his counsel appeared to be fully

prepared and able to address these issues at the April 19 hearing. 

3

Defendant prior to his sentencing, and having ruled on these matters and explained these

rulings at the April 19 sentencing hearing, the Court finds no basis for reconsidering these

rulings.

Rather, the sole remaining task before the Court is to determine the amount of

restitution. As noted, the Government contends that the proper amount of restitution is

$15,672.00. To the extent that Defendant’s post-sentencing submission even addresses

this question, he evidently contends that this amount should be reduced to reflect

exemptions and deductions that he could have claimed, but did not, in the returns and

forms he filed with the Internal Revenue Service for the relevant tax years. Yet, as the

Government points out in a May 16, 2010 response to Defendant’s post-sentencing

motion, a taxpayer’s election to claim (or not claim) exemptions and deductions generally

reflects a strategic decision by the taxpayer that the Government is not free to overrule in

computing the amount of tax owed, and nothing in the record in this case suggests that

Defendant’s determinations to claim (or not claim) exemptions and deductions were the

product of ignorance or mistake rather than deliberate choice. Accordingly, the Court

finds that the amount of restitution sought by the Government is appropriate.

For these reasons,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s May 12, 2010

motion for reversal of sentencing enhancements (docket #98) is DENIED. Next, IT IS
4

FURTHER ORDERED that the appropriate amount of restitution in this case is

$15,672.00, as set forth in the Government’s supplemental sentencing memorandum

dated April 21, 2010. The Court will enter judgment accordingly.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: May 21, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on May 21, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager