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

JOHN S. LEONARDO

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

MONICA B. KLAPPER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Arizona State Bar No. 013755

Two Renaissance Square

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Telephone: 602-514-7500

Email: Monica.Klapper@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

William Ralph Schwoerer,

Defendant.

Case No. CR-15-01436-PHX-SPL

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING 

MEMORANDUM

(Sentencing: April 25, 2016, at 2pm)

The United States submits the following sentencing memorandum and requests 

this Court to accept the parties’ plea agreement and impose the sentence recommended in 

the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) of 3 years of probation with 8 months of 

home detention as a condition of probation. The stipulated restitution of $473,088.40 has 

been paid in full to the victim lender, BMO Harris Bank. 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

I. Defendant’s Criminal Conduct and Cooperation Plea Agreement

By way of pre-indictment plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy 

to commit mail fraud, a class D felony offense. Defendant, a licensed contractor, 

engaged in two fraudulent short sale transactions with the help of nominal owners and 

relatives, causing a net loss to the victim lender, BMO Harris Bank, of $473,088.40. A 

representative of BMO Harris Bank has confirmed that, on April 15, 2016, Defendant 

Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 19 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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

paid the full amount of restitution.

As part of his plea agreement, Defendant agreed to cooperate in the investigation 

of the real estate agent he used in these and other transactions. Defendant and his longtime significant other twice met with the case agent and/or undersigned counsel, and both 

provided credible and complete information for use in the investigation. Although formal 

action was not taken against the real estate agent, Defendant’s efforts yielded important 

assistance in making that assessment. 

II. Sentencing Recommendation

A. Applicable Law

Following its decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), holding 

that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and not mandatory, the United States 

Supreme Court set forth a multi-step procedure this Court must follow in imposing 

sentence. First, “a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly 

calculating the applicable Guidelines range. As a matter of administration and to secure 

nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial 

benchmark.” United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Second, 

after giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they 

deem appropriate, the district judge should then consider all of the [18 

U.S.C.] § 3553 factors to determine whether they support the sentence 

requested by the party. . . . If [the judge] decides that an outside-Guidelines 

sentence is warranted, [the judge] must consider the extent of the deviation 

and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the 

degree of the variance. We find it uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one. 

Id. (citations omitted). And finally, “[a]fter settling on the appropriate sentence, [the 

judge] must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate 

review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Id. 

A sentencing court that follows these procedures will be given great deference in 

substantively crafting a sentence and will be reviewed on appeal under an abuse of 

discretion standard only to determine whether the sentence imposed is “reasonable.” Id.

Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 19 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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

at 51. When conducting its review, the appellate court “may, but is not required to, apply 

a presumption of reasonableness” if the sentence imposed falls within the applicable 

Guidelines range. Id. 

Under the statutory sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), this 

Court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to 

comply with the following purposes:

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed education or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

Section 3553(a) directs the Court to consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the statutory purposes 

noted above; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentences and the 

sentencing range as set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines; (5) the Sentencing Guidelines 

policy statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (7) the 

need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

B. A sentence of 3 years of probation with a condition of 8 months of home 

confinement is warranted. 

The United States is in agreement with the offense level calculation in the PSR of 

17, with a criminal history category of I, and a corresponding range of 24 to 30 months of 

imprisonment. The United States is further in agreement with the recommended sentence 

in the PSR of 3 years of probation (that includes 8 months of home confinement) – either 

as a departure under U.S. Sentencing Guideline 5k1.1, a variance under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553, or a combination of both. Undersigned counsel has very recently conferred with 

the representative of the victim lender, and the lender would be “very satisfied” with the

recommended sentence – given that Defendant will have felony conviction on his record 

and has paid restitution in full.

As set forth above, Defendant’s efforts at providing assistance in the investigation 

Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 19 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

of the real estate agent were assessed as genuine, and those efforts did assist the United 

States in an accurate evaluation of the agent’s conduct. Although no formal action was 

taken against the agent, Defendant’s efforts are worthy of a downward departure. 

The sentencing goals set forth in § 3553 also weigh in favor of a sentence that 

varies below the guidelines range. As set forth in the PSR, Defendant has no criminal 

history, provides for his significant other and their three young children, has strong 

family support and community ties, and is gainfully employed. Importantly, Defendant’s 

remorse for his actions is assessed as sincere, as demonstrated by his payment of 

restitution to the victim lender. Under these circumstances, a felony conviction, 

restitution, and a period of probation with some home confinement are sufficient to 

satisfy the sentencing goals of recognizing the seriousness of the offense, promoting

respect for the law, providing just punishment for the offense, and deterring similar 

criminal conduct. 

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of April, 2016.

JOHN S. LEONARDO

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/Monica B. Klapper

MONICA B. KLAPPER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the above date, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant: Phil Noland 

s/Amanda Pille

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 19 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 4