Source: http://federalsentencing.typepad.com/developments_in_federal_s/cooperation/page/2/
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 03:43:41
Document Index: 254120926

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 3553']

United States v. Marino, No. 08-0615-cr (2d Cir. Feb. 17, 2009) (found here)
Dan Marino worked for hedge fund swindler Samuel Israel. He pled guilty for his involvement in that massive fraud, and entered into a cooperation agreement with the Government. The Guidelines recommended a 50 year term of imprisonment. The district court sentenced him to 20 years. Marino appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. While the Second Circuit affirmed the sentence, it issued some pretty strong language concerning the district court's sentencing decision. Here's what it had to say:
We pause to note that we might ourselves have given greater weight than apparently did the district court to Marino's plight -- his almost complete deafness and accompanying sense of loneliness, his lack of self-esteem, his bouts with cancer, his apparent fear of and deference to Israel -- and his assistance to the government detailed in its "5K1 Letter" (noting his aid to the government in understanding the fraud, his immediate contrition and taking of responsibility upon discovery, and his contribution to the guilty pleas of his co-conspirators). But it is not for us to substitute our judgment for that of the district court, whose sentence was procedurally and substantively proper.
I fear that the fact that the Second Circuit came close to, but ultimately did not, reverse the sentence for substantive unreasonableness will only further weaken the opportunities for and possibility of any reversal based on substantive unreasonableness. And that begs the questions: What is substantive unreasonableness? What circumstances qualify for a finding of substantive unreasonableness?
February 17, 2009 in Cooperation, Exreme Vulnerability To Abuse In Prison, Fact Considerations at Sentencing, Health of the Defendant, Reasonableness Review | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The High Cost Of Violating A Cooperation Agreement
United States v. Herrera, No. 04-CR-1093 (JBW), 2009 WL 230654 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2009)
Herrera pled guilty to a single-count indictment, charging a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribte heroin. He also entered into a cooperation agreement with the Government. But he blew it.
Herrera faced an advisory Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months imprisonment. According to the Court, if he had fulfilled the terms of his cooperation agreement with the Government and a Section 5K1.1 motion had been filed, the Court "would have been inclined to order a sentence of time served." (The Court didn't indicate how much time that would have been.) He didn't. Specifically, he was not truthful with the Government, and violated the terms of the cooperation agreement by communicating the content of his discussions with the Government to a co-defendant. Accordingly, no 5K1.1 motion was filed.
There is a high cost to entering into and then breaching a cooperation agreement with the Government. Herrrera should be a lesson to all defendants who chose to fly to close to the flame -- sometimes you get burned.
February 05, 2009 in Cooperation | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Ramsey held up his end of the bargain -- he cooperated. Based on that cooperation, the government moved for a five-level downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. If the court accepted the five-level downward departure, Ramsey's advisory Guidelines range would be 121-151 months. And because the bottom end of that Guidelines range was just above the statutory 120 month mandatory minimum, the Government declined to move for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), which would have freed the court to sentence Ramsey below the 120 month mandatory minimum.
The problem with the government's action is that it forced the court to be in a position of not being able to independently evaluate the value of Ramsey's cooperation. It only had one month with which to play (the difference between the 120 month mandatory minimum and the 121 months at the bottom of Ramsey's Guidelines range). The court was none too pleased. And it called the government out on it.
Specifically, the court found that the "government has, in essence, made the determination of what sentence is reasonable based upon the nature and extent of Ramsey's substantial assistance. By not making a motion under § 3553(e), the government has reserved for itself 'the final decision as to how much, if any, reduction in sentence is warranted' by defendant's substantial cooperation." That action ran afoul of the terms of the cooperation agreement into which Ramsey and the government entered, which provided "that the final determination of how much of a reduction is warranted will be made by the Court," not the government.
In a word, the government did not act in bad faith or breach the cooperation agreement by only moving for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and not 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). It had the discretion to do just that. But by doing so, the government did breach the provision of the cooperation agreement "that reserved for the Court the final judgment as to the value of Ramsey's substantial assistance." Remedy? Specific performance -- the "government is deemed to have filed a motion for a downward departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)."
September 05, 2007 in Cooperation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Fernandez Follow-Up
Fernandez v. United States, Nos. 06 Civ. 13524 (DLC), 02 Cr. 1398, 2007 WL 2456680 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007)
Mayra Fernandez first made news in the Second Circuit with this 2006 decision. In it, the Second Circuit set forth its view on many post-Booker appellate sentencing issues, including rejection of a presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines sentences. It also first time recognized non-5K cooperation as a basis for a non-Guidelines sentence.
For the defendant, Mayra Fernandez, however, it was about her 151 month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram and more of heroin. Following her appeal, Fernandez filed a Section 2255 petition claiming that her counsel was ineffective at sentencing, notwithstanding that her 151 month sentence was significantly below the advisory 188 to 235 month range. Judge Cote of the Southern District of New York rejected the petition, finding that the grounds for her petition (that she did not have an opportunity to speak at sentencing and that her attorneys did not argue that a Guidelines sentence would create unwarranted sentence disparity) were wholly without merit.
September 04, 2007 in Cooperation, Non-Guidelines Sentences Generally, Reasonableness Review | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I Want My 5K (Even Though I Ran)
United States v. Carmon, No. 06-0165-cr (2d Cir. May 2, 2007) (found here)
Carmon appealed his sentence arguing that his intentional pre-sentence flight was not a sufficient basis for declaring that he had breached his plea and cooperation agreement. The Second Circuit responded with what seems obvious: (1) by absconding Carmon forfeited any rights he arguably may have had based on his cooperation agreement with the Government (including to the filing of a 5K1.1 letter); (2) intentionally failing to appear for sentencing is so inherently obstructive of the administration of justice that it -- standing alone -- is sufficient to support an obstruction of justice enhancement; and (3) intentionally failing to appear for sentencing constitutes a failure to accept responsibility for one's offense.
Some defendants . . . wow.
May 02, 2007 in Acceptance of Responsibility, Cooperation, Plea Agreements | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
A Candidate For Non-5K Cooperation?
United States v. Lewis, No. 06-0408-cr. (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2006)
Lewis entered into a plea and cooperation agreement with the Government and, in fact, testified on behalf of the Government in two trials. Lewis, however, lied during the course of that testimony. The Government, in turn, excercised its discretion (as provided for in his plea and cooperation agreement) to not provide the Court with a 5K letter at Lewis' sentencing based on his breach of his plea and cooperation agreement . Lewis appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed the Government's decision not to file a 5K letter.
Well tread ground. If you breach your agreement with the Government, they will not support you at sentencing. But Lewis likely would have been a good candidate for a non-Guidelines sentence based on non-5K cooperation if he had otherwise provided the Government with good information, right?
January 27, 2007 in Cooperation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
A Report From The Trenches Of Non-5K Cooperation
United States v. Mercier, No. 03 cr. 510 (S.D.N.Y.)
Scott B. Tulman (http://www.lawyers.com/tulmanlaw/) reports on a case of non-5K cooperation resulting in a non-Guidelines sentence.
Specifically, Mercier provided the Government with information relating to criminal conduct undertaken by associates of his in the securities industry and also provided the SEC with information that it used in connection with an enforcement proceeding. Mercier, however, opted not to enter into a cooperation agreement with the Government because (among other reasons) he did not want to enter a plea of guilty to the additional charges for which the Government sought a guilty plea in connection with a proposed plea and cooperation agreement. Thus, while Mercier plead guilty to certain charges, he did so without a cooperation agreement -- notwithstanding the substantial information that he had provided to the Government. At sentencing, Mercier faced an advisory Guidelines range of 33-41 months imprisonment. The court, however, imposed a sentence of a year-and-a-day based largely on Mercier's non-5K cooperation. As reported by Scott Tulman, the court found that Mercier has "been cooperative with the Government, has accepted responsibility for his bad acts, shown his ability to lead a lawful and productive life and given considerable assistance to the court-appointed receiver in the related" SEC action.
TO THE READERS: Have you confronted an interesting or challenging sentencing issue? Have you had an interesting sentencing case? Share the information with the Second Circuit Sentencing Blog at info@fedsentencinglaw.com, and we'll feature a description of your case.
January 21, 2007 in Cooperation, Non-Guidelines Sentences Generally | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)