UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-20665-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

WYMAN JORDAN WRIGHT,

Defendant.

__________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND SCHEDULING

SENTENCING HEARING

On December 10, 2009, in lieu of a sentencing hearing, the Court held a status conference

with defense counsel and government counsel to discuss potential sentencing issues raised by the

parties’ respective sentencing memorandums. The government seeks to introduce the testimony of

two witnesses at the sentencing hearing as to events that allegedly occurred in about 1969 and 1972,

to prove a “pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor” by Defendant,

which if proven increases Defendant’s offense level by five levels. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5). The

enhancement would increase Defendant’s guideline sentencing range from 135 to 168 months, to

235 to 240 months.

In light of this, the Court directed the parties to provide supplemental briefing on two legal

questions: (1) whether there is a sufficient temporal connection between the offense for which

Defendant was convicted and the alleged conduct that occurred in 1969 and 1972 such that it is

relevant conduct for sentencing purposes; and (2) whether there are any Booker concerns given the

uncharged conduct and necessity of judicial fact finding. On January 8, 2010, the government filed

its opening supplemental brief [Dkt. # 34]; and on January 18, 2010, Defendant filed a responsive
-2-

supplemental brief [Dkt. # 35]. On January 27, 2010, the government filed a reply [Dkt. # 36].

In his responsive supplemental brief, Defendant concedes that a temporal nexus between the

sentencing offense and other conduct alleged is not a required element of a “pattern of activity”

enhancement under U.S.S. G. 2G2.2(b)(5). Likewise, Defendant concedes that the Court may

engage in judicial factfinding to determine an applicable advisory sentencing guideline range.

However, Defendant also asserts that the testimony that the government seeks to introduce is “prima

facie unreliable and does not meet the constitutional standard for the enhancement sought.”

Significantly, however, Defendant does not cite any legal authority for that vague proposition, and

it is not clear whether Defendant is advancing an argument concerning the weight that should be

accorded to the testimony, a due process argument regarding consideration of the evidence, a due

process argument challenging the enhancement itself, or any other argument. Thus, Defendant will

be directed to file a supplemental brief clarifying the argument that he seeks to advance.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant is DIRECTED to file supplemental briefing

addressing the issue outlined above on or before March 24, 2010.

It is further ORDERED that the government is DIRECTED to file a response to

Defendant’s supplemental brief on or before March 31, 2010.

It is further ORDERED that a sentencing hearing is SCHEDULED for April 12, 2010 at

10:00 a.m.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2010
-3-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on March 11, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS