Source: https://pl.scribd.com/document/401162711/Mueller-responds-to-Manafort-in-EDVA
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:15:31+00:00

Document:
arguments regarding a disparate sentence.
For example, Manafort notes: ‘The cases that Special Counsel have brought against Mr.
blamed on the government or a jury’s holding him responsible for his crimes.
dollars. Doc. 317 at 15-16. It does not.
misdirection are further proof that he has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.
used to pay him. Trial Tr., at 1247.
$3,897,468.00 mortgage beginning on or about April 1, 2016”).
responsible for the criminal choices that bring him to this Court for sentencing.
assistance and then jumped bail prior to sentencing).
from both courts. See Plea Agreement, United States v. Manafort, No. 17-cr-201 (ABJ) (D.D.C.
United States v. Manafort, No. 17-cr-201 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2018) Doc. 423 (“D.C.
also lied to the government and the grand jury, in material ways, as recently as October 2018.
proof that the defendant poses a serious risk of recidivism.
quotation marks omitted). Manafort cannot make that claim.
Manafort argues that his health and age merit a departure or variance from the guidelines.
where incarceration would jeopardize treatment); United States v. Carey, 895 F.2d 318 (7th Cir.
1990) (cancer, without more, is not an extraordinary physical impairment).
a long period of incarceration.
for public consumption, but not mine.
the guidelines arguments in the defendant’s sentencing submission.
The government submits that this finding is persuasive authority, but not binding on this Court.
(sophisticated means) and a four level role enhancement pursuant to § 3B1.1(a).
conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1, cmt. n. 5.
to shareholders as dictated by the market and which may have been caused by a variety of factors.
some courts have said, “is merely deliberate steps taken to make the offense difficult to detect."
O'Doherty, 643 F.3d at 220 (ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted).
concealed the identity of the true owner, Manafort, and which existed only to open bank accounts.
difficult to detect, he succeeded in doing so over an extended period of time.
Finally, courts regularly apply role enhancements in tax cases. See, e.g., United States v.
Dr. Kyphos Chrysostomides’ firm (as reflected in Government Exhibits 63 and 73B).
“enterprise” designed solely or even “primar[ily]” to carry out crimes.
No. 09-cr-1184, 2012 WL 362031, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012). See also United States v.
or the tax guidelines (as would the sophisticated means enhancement).
provision of misleading information about the value of the collateral underlying the transaction.
He does not, in short, deserve a reduction on intended loss based on the value of the collateral.
criminal conduct following indictment and after a guilty verdict and later guilty plea.
voluntarily returned to the United States to be subject to prosecution.
guidance and no reason not to impose a sentence commensurate with his criminal conduct.
of Facts and Other Offense attached to his plea agreement in the District of Columbia. See D.C.
secure substantial loans from The Federal Savings Bank.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 2
 v.

 v.