Source: http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2017/12/michael-flynn-plea-documents-analysis.html
Timestamp: 2018-08-17 01:27:11
Document Index: 673169249

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 1001', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Federal Tax Crimes: Michael Flynn Plea Documents, Analysis and Comments (12/1/17; 12/4/17)
The conduct to which Flynn pled is very serious indeed. Normally, raising the offense level based on economic amounts calibrates, at least roughly, the seriousness of the crime. In this case, if indeed the Base Offense Level of 6 applies, that would implies that the object of the crime was small beans economically. There may have been no economic crime with regard to the false statements about the Russian contacts, but there was certainly potential economic economic crimes related to the failure to register for the Turkey Project. Indeed, since there was no economic crime related to the Russian investigation, the Turkey Project would presumably be the economic crime justifying the sentencing under SG § 2B1. And the amounts involved certainly were more than $6,000 which would cause additional offense levels to be added to the Base Offense Level of 6.
But, if there is no economic crime here with a high dollar amount involved, then I would think that the Base Level of 6 understates the seriousness of the crime. That might justify applying another Guideline which I have not attempted to identify or even justify a Booker upward variance at sentencing.
The plea agreement then stipulates to the 2-level acceptance of responsibility reduction under SG § 3E1.1 to derive the final offense level of 4 for the Sentencing Table. Nothing unusual here.
With these Guidelines calculations, the estimated sentencing range is 0 - 6 months.
Paragraph added 12/4/17: I questioned above whether SG § 2B1.1 is the proper Guideline. I do understand that Appendix A, the statutory index indicates that false statement under § 1001 is to be sentenced under SG § 2B1.1, but I am not sure that is binding if the Guideline does not fit. I would think that the better fit, since the conduct in the count of conviction is not an economic crime, would be obstruction of justice or perjury under SG §§ 2J1.2 or 2J1.3, with perjury being the better analog since false statement is much like perjury, just without being under oath with penalty of perjury. I understand that, where the false statement is an economic crime, that might be the better fit, but where it is not an economic crime, perjury seems the better fit. Perjury has a Base Offense Level of 14. The 2-level acceptance of responsibility downward adjustment would produce an offense level of 12. The Sentencing Table shows a Guidelines range of 10 to 16 months for offense level 12, before any 5K1 adjustment.
The plea agreement then contemplates a downward "departure" from the Guidelines range under § 5K1 for cooperation. The parties agree that, apart from the § 5K1 departure, the foregoing Guidelines apply and no further "departure or adjustment to the Estimated Guidelines Range" will be sought. The plea agreement seems to deal only with the Guidelines Range. It permits no adjustments for other "departure" -- a term of art applying only to the Guidelines calculations and factors covered in the Guideline -- or "other adjustment." It is not clear what other adjustment may mean, but if they were meaning to stipulate about no Booker variances, they would have said so specifically. It is possible that the sentence, read as written, is not addressing Booker variances either way. And, in any event it is just a recommendation. My suspension is that, if the Court is going to consider a Booker variance, the variance will be upward because the calculations with a Base Offense Level of 6 and no other upward adjustments seriously understates the harm of the crime and related conduct he was attempting to cover up by lying.
The plea agreement requires Flynn's cooperation.
Posted by Jack Townsend at 6:12 PM