Opinion ID: 399380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: government's sentencing memorandum

Text: 68 Tietjen contests the district court's failure to strike the government's sentencing memorandum, which was filed shortly before the sentencing hearing and which recommended that Roe and Tietjen endure lengthy incarceration for their convictions. Tietjen asserts that the memo contained numerous improper statements and considerations that influenced the district court to impose harsher sentences. We uphold the district court's refusal to strike the government's memorandum. 69 Tietjen has not shown any prejudice from the district court's failure to strike the memo. We cannot agree that the district court gave undue consideration to any of the allegedly improper arguments contained in the memo. The district judge clearly recognized the shortcomings of the memo, stating, I don't agree with everything that's in the government's memorandum, and observing, (P)arts of it, the Court would characterize to be improper pressure on the Court. (Supp. Record at 3-4). 70 Tietjen's contention that consideration by the district court of arguments like those in the memo would have a chilling effect on a defendant's decision to exercise his right to trial, rather than to plead guilty, is similarly without merit. The district court here admonished the government against the indiscriminate filing of sentencing memoranda like the one in this case. Addressing the government's attorney, the district judge said, I don't encourage (the filing of such memos) ... and in the future, for your benefit, there is ample time after sentencing proceedings for the Government to present (its) views. (Supp. Record at 4). Finally, Tietjen filed a detailed motion to strike that, in the district court's words, amply responded to the allegedly objectionable arguments in the government's memo. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the government's sentencing memorandum.