Opinion ID: 1207983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Of the Proceedings on the Crosby Remand

Text: Seeking on remand a post- Booker sentence significantly lower than the 275-month term of imprisonment handed down on March 5, 2004, Timewell's attorney submitted to the court a letter dated July 11, 2005, arguing that Timewell's original sentence was keyed to the mandatory Guidelines then in place and urging a sentence taking into account the factors... set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In the letter, Counsel recounted the extensive cooperation provided by his client to the authorities and again explained Timewell's failure to disclose his knowledge of the transfer of the $5 million Swiss bank account. Counsel took special note of the sentence imposed upon co-conspirator Sherrett, whose original sentence of 188 months (which took into account a three-level downward departure for assisting a prison guard attacked by inmates) was reduced to 120 months for cooperation, which included testimony at the trials of Vondette. Counsel's letter concluded as follows: I urge Your Honor to reflect carefully about an error you may have made with regard to the Guidelines computation relating to the 18 U.S.C. § 1001 conduct, to consider the 10-year sentence you imposed on codefendant Thomas Sherrett, and to consider the government's functional equivalent of its highest recommendation of Timewell as the best of 146 cooperators in this case. The government's submission on remand consisted of a letter dated July 7, 2005, signed by Assistant United States Attorney Burton T. Ryan Jr. The letter included a brief review of the history of the case and a description of the purpose of a Crosby remand as well as the procedure to be followed on such a remand. Noting that the government's 5K1.1 letter enabled the court to depart from the Guidelines and impose a sentence of 275 months, the letter concluded as follows: [O]nly the Court can determine to what extent the then mandatory nature of the Guidelines [a]ffected the sentence the Court imposed. The question of whether the sentence would have ... been materially different if the guidelines were only advisory, we leave ... to the Court's discretion. An additional submission came in the form of a letter dated July 1, 2005, from David S. Katz, President and CEO of Global Security Group, Inc. Katz was a former Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration and was the Agent charged with debriefing Timewell. In his 8-page letter to the court, Katz detailed the extensive information he gleaned from Timewell's cooperation during the period 1996-1998. According to Katz, the overwhelming majority of information provided by Timewell was previously unknown to the government and would never have been known without Timewell's cooperation. Katz characterized Timewell as an extremely valuable source of information that furthered the investigation [he] had been conducting. Katz noted that the international drug trafficking information provided not only furthered his own investigation but was also provided to the law enforcement authorities of Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Thailand, Belgium, Pakistan, Singapore, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In a letter submission dated September 10, 2007, counsel for Timewell noted that Timewell's cooperation was much more extensive than that of Sherrett. Counsel also noted that Assistant United States Attorney Ryan had commented as follows in comparing the sentences of Timewell and Sherrett: While their roles were similar, the amounts of the drugs Mr. [Sherrett] was held accountable for were much less. (alteration in original; emphasis omitted). The proceedings on remand concluded with extensive arguments by counsel and colloquies with the court on September 20, 2007. Counsel for Timewell argued that co-conspirators more culpable than Timewell received more lenient sentences, with special references to co-conspirators Sherrett and Johnson. Although Johnson was sentenced after this Court ordered Timewell's Crosby remand, the government had consented to an adjournment of Timewell's Crosby hearing to permit consideration of Johnson's sentence, which was to a term of incarceration of fifteen years (180 months). At the hearing, Assistant United States Attorney Charles Kelly advised the court that Timewell may have been put in a situation worse than Johnson because of his extensive disclosures. He noted that dealing with Johnson's proffers was like pulling teeth and that Johnson was in no way as forthcoming as Timewell. Johnson did not receive a letter recommending consideration for his cooperation. Kelly referred to the good faith of Timewell and made this statement: And so we ask the [c]ourt to give serious consideration and weight to the argument that there should not be a significant disparity between Mr. Johnston [sic] and Mr. Timewell. Despite the urging of the government, the District Court was concerned that Timewell failed to disclose the account in Switzerland and therefore, in accordance with past practices in the United States Attorney's Office, should not have had the benefit of the cooperation letter supplied by the government: Well, mainly my understanding of ... this case, probably, and the principle that the U.S. Attorney's Office in this districtwhich is unique as far as any district is concerned in this country as far as I can determineif you didn't cooperate properly, and you violated your agreement with the government and didn't give full and accurate descriptions of everything, you lose all your benefits. Not just a partial, or not just some of it, but all benefits in the cooperation letter. Now, when you hide 2 and-a-half million dollars in drug money in Switzerland, and it comes out through other sources than the defendantwhat happened to that rule? Assistant United States Attorney Kelly, to whom the court's remarks were addressed, responded that his Office decided to continue with the cooperation and penalize him by having him plead to the false statement charge. Mr. Kelly went on to emphasize the importance of Timewell's cooperation and the resultant benefit to the government, specifically pointing out the disparity in sentences between Timewell and Johnson and the failure of Johnson, who did not receive a 5K1.1 letter, to make full disclosure. The court persisted in expressing its concern: [I]n several prior cases, the moment a defendant has told the government a material falsehood, the [G]uidelines go like hard rock rules in those days. And there was no such thing as a reduction once he has taken that position. And I think there was a universal rule. I know it happened many times in this court. Timewell's counsel then stated that in his experience [t]here is no rule that requires the government to shred a cooperation agreement for failure to disclose assets. The court responded: There is no rule. But it has been invoked in this [c]ourt more times than you can imagine. In a later colloquy with Timewell's counsel in which counsel argued that the court had erroneously referred to the government's customary practice as a rule, the court responded: [T]hey said to me it was a rule. And they have been representing that to me for years.... Not my rule. I certainly don't make up the rules. The District Court also discussed with the government the sentencing range that would have applied to Timewell absent the submission of a 5K1.1 letter. Mr. Kelly indicated that Timewell was at [an offense level of] 45 at one point, which carried a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The District Court appeared to accept this summary of the applicable Guidelines calculation, suggesting that Timewell had benefitted substantially from his cooperation since he received a sentence of only 275 months. In fact, however, and as previously noted, Timewell's actual Guidelines sentencing range was 324 to 405 months, not life imprisonment as represented by the government.