UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 09-cr-030-GZS

)

ELAINE BROWN )

UNITED STATES' SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Defendant Elaine Brown was convicted for her leading role in the armed standoff with 

the United States Marshal Service after her conviction for tax evasion. Luckily, the Marshal 

Service was able to intercede before any violence occurred. The defendant was sentenced to 420 

months of imprisonment. Among the offenses, was her conviction under § 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) 

for the use of explosives that carried a 360-month sentence. The Supreme Court has since ruled 

that the provision of § 924(c) under which the defendant was convicted is invalid and therefore 

the defendant is before the Court for resentencing. Without the now invalid § 924(c) offense, the 

defendant faces an advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months. The United States 

recommends that the Court impose a sentence within that range.

The defendant's sentencing memorandum makes three primary points. First, her crimes 

did not result in any actual violence. Second, she was manipulated by her husband, Edward 

Brown. And third, she has undergone substantial post-trial rehabilitation while in the Bureau of 

Prisons. As to the defendant's third claim, the government does not dispute the facts presented 

about the defendant's behavior in prison. But the defendant's notion that there was no actual 

violence misses the point and the facts about her relationship with her husband does not 

undermine the fact that the defendant took a leadership role in this dangerous conspiracy. 

The defendant says that "no person suffered any injury as a result of any of the actions of 

the Browns or their coconspirators." While that statement is accurate, it ignores why that is so. 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 312 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 3
2

The defendant and her coconspirators armed themselves to the teeth and engaged in violent 

threats against the Marshals to dissuade them from taking the Browns into custody after their 

valid convictions and sentencing. That the conspiracy did not end in the violent conflagration 

the Browns promised was the result of the excellent work of the United States Marshal to 

infiltrate the conspiracy. But that is not to the defendant's credit. There was no evidence that the 

defendant or her confederates were unwilling to use the weapons stockpiled on the Brown 

property. Indeed, just before the undercover Marshals arrested the defendant, she held a semiautomatic handgun on them while her husband held an assault rifle. In short, the notion that the 

defendant should receive credit because the nine-month siege ended peacefully is absurd.

The defendant's suggestion that Edward Brown is to blame is simplistic. The defendant 

was educated and ran a successful dental practice. After the defendant was convicted but before 

sentencing, this Court released her to live with her children with electronic monitoring. She 

made her own choice to cut off the monitoring bracelet, return to her husband and join in the 

conspiracy. During that conspiracy, she took care of the supporters that came to her property and 

held guns on the undercover Marshals as mentioned above. There is no doubt that in every 

conspiracy the relationships among the coconspirators is complicated and has an effect on the 

actions that people take. But the defendant was a successful adult with adult children when she 

met the defendant. She is responsible for her own actions.

This Court sentenced the defendant to 420 months, more than the 360 months that this 

Court was required to impose. Thus, the Court's view at the time was that the defendant's 

conduct required a punishment more serious than the minimum the law required. See Dean v 

United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 312 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 3
3

That view was and remains correct. The Supreme Court has determined that Congress' 

definition of crime of violence in § 924(c) was unduly vague. But can there be any doubt that 

under any reasonable lay understanding of the term 'crime of violence,' the defendant's conduct 

qualifies? She was part of an armed cabal determined to undermine the rule of law through 

violence if necessary. The defendant will benefit from the Supreme Court's change in the law. 

But the question now is by how much?

The defendant's offense was serious and it deserves serious punishment. It is also 

critically important that this Court send a general deterrence message that flouting the judicial 

system with threats of violence will not be tolerated in an organized society. And finally, a long 

sentence conveys the ultimate issue underlying this prosecution -- respect for the law. A 

guideline sentence would reflect these important sentencing considerations. Therefore, the 

government recommends that the Court sentence the defendant to a guideline sentence.

Dated: January 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT W. MURRAY

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Seth R. Aframe

Seth R. Aframe, AUSA 

53 Pleasant Street, 5th Floor

Concord, NH 03301

(603) 225-1552

seth.aframe@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this response has been forwarded this date via ECF 

electronic filing to Jeffrey Levin, Esq., counsel for the defendant. 

/s/ Seth R. Aframe 

Seth R. Aframe, AUSA

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 312 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3