UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 20 CR 260

v. ) 

 ) The Honorable Andrea R. Wood

TIMOTHY O’DONNELL ) 

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

On May 30, 2020, thousands of people converged on the downtown area to 

protest the murder of George Floyd. The majority of those protestors were peaceful. 

Some, including defendant Timothy O’Donnell, were not. O’Donnell was walking 

amongst a large group of people while wearing a replica “Joker” mask. After several 

minutes walking with the crowd O’Donnell came upon a Chicago Police Department 

vehicle that was parked on the 200 block of North State Street. O’Donnell approached 

the vehicle and another individual handed him a piece of cloth. O’Donnell placed the 

piece of cloth in the fuel filler of the vehicle and ignited the cloth with a lighter. The 

CPD vehicle ignited and the fire spread to the interior of the vehicle, ultimately 

destroying the vehicle entirely. After starting the fire, O’Donnell hung around to 

celebrate his actions and pose for photos in front of the burning vehicle.

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:338
2

Considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s 

background and characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence and 

promote respect for the law, the government recommends a sentence of incarceration 

within the advisory sentencing Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. 

I. PRELIMINARY ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES RANGE

As a matter of process, the District Court must properly calculate the 

Guidelines range, treat the Guidelines as advisory, consider the Section 3553(a) 

factors, and adequately explain the chosen sentence, including an explanation for any 

variance from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 

(2007).

The government agrees with the Probation Office’s determination that the base 

offense level is 24, pursuant to Guideline § 2K1.4(a)(1)(B), because the offense 

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:339
3

involved the destruction and attempted destruction of a state and government 

facility. PSR at ¶ 14. 

The government also agrees that the defendant has accepted responsibility in 

a timely fashion and receives a three-point reduction to his offense level pursuant to 

Guidelines §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b). PSR at ¶¶ 21-22. 

Finally, the government agrees with the Probation Office that defendant’s 

criminal history points equal 4 and place him in Category III. PSR at ¶ 34-40.

Pursuant to these calculations, the defendant’s total offense level is 21, his 

criminal history category is III, and his advisory Guidelines range of imprisonment 

is 46-57 months. PSR at ¶ 103. The government also agrees that the Court may 

impose a period of supervised release of up to 3 years. PSR at ¶ 105.

II. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION ON SENTENCING

The Sentencing Guidelines provide a starting point and initial benchmark for 

sentencing. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). The “Guidelines remain 

an essential tool in creating a fair and uniform sentencing regime across the country.” 

United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005); see also United States 

v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660, 668 (7th Cir. 2010) (a “district court that sentences within 

the Guidelines necessarily gives weight and consideration to avoiding unwarranted 

disparities.”). Although a sentence within the Guidelines is presumptively 

reasonable, United States v. Cano-Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2009), the 

court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining an 

appropriate sentence.

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:340
4

For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that a sentence 

within the Guidelines is warranted in this case and most appropriately reflects the 

nature and circumstances of defendant’s offense, his history and characteristics, the 

need to afford adequate deterrence, and promote respect for the law. 

A. The Nature and Circumstances of Defendant’s Crime

The defendant’s crime was extremely serious. He hijacked a critical moment in 

time for this city to, apparently, live out a scene from his favorite movie. The 

atmosphere and mood in the Loop on May 30, 2020 was tense and raw. Thousands of 

people traveled downtown, which had been largely vacated for the prior two months

given the COVID pandemic, to protest the murder of George Floyd. Responding to 

reports of property damage and looting, CPD officers also converged on the Loop. The 

CPD officers were subject to threats, harassment, and projectiles from some members 

of the crowd throughout that afternoon and evening. Defendant arrived upon a 

volatile scene in the Loop and he made it more dangerous for police and protestors.

The defendant was part of that crowd and was, initially, a bystander. While 

wearing his replica Joker mask, he followed a crowd of people north as it confronted 

a line of CPD officers. Initially, he posed for photos, like the one below:

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:341
5

The defendant also recorded footage of the protests on his tablet and narrated 

some of the scenes. In one of those recordings, as the defendant walked down Wacker 

Drive, he casually joked, “beautiful day for a barbecue.” Minutes later, he set fire to 

the CPD vehicle. The defendant was not the only person who vandalized that CPD 

vehicle, and he wasn’t the only person who set fire to vehicles that evening. But he 

was the person responsible for setting fire to this vehicle. His actions put scores of 

people at risk, including police officers, firefighters, protesters, and bystanders; he 

interfered with law enforcement officers trying to protect the public at a time when 

their services were critical; he caused thousands of dollars in damages; and he served 

as the poster child for images that tarnished this city. And that last point may have 

been his goal. After setting fire to the CPD vehicle, the defendant stuck around to 

pose for pictures in front of the wreckage he created. He added to the chaos of an 

already chaotic night for no reason other than to live out his own fantasies.

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:342
6

Thankfully, no one was injured as a result of the fire the defendant set. 

Defendant knew what he was doing was dangerous and could hurt others. Indeed, 

surveillance footage of the offense shows a crowd of people running away from the 

vehicle as defendant lit the rag in the fuel filler area. Despite the obvious risks his 

actions posed to others, defendant did it anyway. Only by sheer luck was no one 

injured, but it could have been very different. 

Accordingly, the nature and circumstances of defendant’s offense warrant a 

significant sentence of imprisonment.

B. Defendant’s History and Characteristics

Defendant is 33 years old and has a long history of mental health, substance 

abuse, and addiction issues. PSR, ¶¶ 57-93. Defendant’s serious drug addiction has 

cast a pall over his entire adulthood and is reflected in his criminal history. According 

to defendant, he first began using heroin at the age of 17, which is shortly before he 

began being arrested for criminal conduct. In addition to his opioid addiction, which 

continued up until his arrest for this offense, defendant also has suffered from 

cocaine, methamphetamine, and alcohol addiction. PSR, ¶¶ 88-89. Those addictions 

have overwhelmed his life and have been the primary driver of his criminal history. 

All of his convictions, which place him in criminal history category III, were driven 

by his addiction issues. 

While defendant may assert that his mental health and substance abuse issues 

are mitigating, they do not excuse his criminal history. He bears responsibility for his 

repeated convictions (7) and arrests (11). Further, defendant has no employment 

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:343
7

history and has never held a real job in his life. PSR ¶¶ 96-97. Accordingly, 

defendant’s history and characteristics support a sentence within the advisory 

guidelines range.

C. The Need to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote 

Respect for the Law, and Afford Adequate Deterrence

If there were ever a crime that showcased a disrespect for the law, it is this 

one. Defendant made that clear as he posed for pictures in front of the burning vehicle 

and narrated the recordings he filmed after he set fire to the CPD vehicle. In one such 

recording, defendant joked, “I wonder who started that.”

It bears repeating just how turbulent that evening and weekend were in 

Chicago. It was the most violent and deadly weekend in over thirty years, with 18 

murders in a 24-hour span, and 85 people shot and 24 killed over the three-day 

weekend. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52984535 (last visited May 

26, 2022). That is horrific. While defendant is not responsible for all that criminal 

conduct, defendant contributed to the lawlessness and violent mindset in the city. 

His conduct also pulled the some of the resources of the city away from that violence 

to attend to the chaos he created in the Loop. This case calls out for a sentence to 

promote respect for the law.

There is also a need for a sentence that sends a message to the public that 

chaos and destruction will be met with severe consequences. Not every participant in 

criminal conduct during a riot or civil unrest will be identified. But it is imperative 

that those who are receive significant punishment for their actions. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:344
8 

III. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION ON SUPERVISED RELEASE

The government has no objections to the conditions of supervised release 

recommended by the Probation Office, and the government submits that a period of 

supervised release of three years is appropriate. The government also agrees with 

the special conditions and discretionary conditions of supervised release, as 

recommended by the Probation Office.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that a 

Guidelines sentence is appropriate here, and requests that the Court sentence 

defendant Timothy O’Donnell to a term of imprisonment within the Guideline range 

of 46-to 57 months, followed by three years of supervised release. 

Date: May 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.

United States Attorney

By: /s James P. Durkin 

JAMES P. DURKIN

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

219 South Dearborn Street, Fifth Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-6630

Case: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/27/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:345