UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAHARRISONBURG DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA:::Case No. 3:09cr30v.:::PATRICK SCOTT SHEMORRY:

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Comes now the defendant, Patrick Scott Shemorry (“Shemorry”) and respectfullyrequests that the Court impose a sentence of nine years, and in support thereof states thefollowing.I.

PROCEDURE

Pursuant to a plea agreement, on September 22, 2009, the defendant, Patrick Shemorry(“Shemorry”) pleaded guilty to causing another person to travel in interstate commerce withintent to murder another, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the written plea agreement stipulates a sentence of imprisonment between nine and ten years.Shemorry is scheduled to be sentenced on December 9, 2009.

II. SENTENCING AUTHORITIES

As this Court well knows, a district court should not determine the appropriate sentence by the mechanistic application of a given sentence to a given category of crime; rather, asentencing court has the duty to ensure the sentence imposed is tailored to the individual beforeit:Punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime. The belief no longer

Case 3:09-cr-00030-nkm Document 23 Filed 12/02/2009 Page 1 of 10

2 prevails that every offense in a like legal category calls for an identical punishment without regard to the past life and habits of a particular offender.

Williams v. New York

, 337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949);

see also

United States v. Carter

, 564 F.3d 325,328 (4 Cir. 2009)(citing

Gall v. United States

, 522 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct.586, 597 (2007)(“When

rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must make an

individualized

assessment based on thefacts presented.’”). Indeed, with the watershed decision of

United States v. Booker

, 543 U.S.220 (2005), the question of

whether

prison is

necessary

for a particular individual returns to a place of primacy in the sentencing decision. A court must impose the

minimum

term necessaryto comply with the goals of sentencing, i.e., just punishment, deterrence, protection of the publicand rehabilitation of the defendant, taking into consideration all factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).The Supreme Court recently directed that a “district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. As a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting pointand the initial benchmark. The Guidelines are not the only consideration, however.”

Gall v.United States

, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at *7 (Dec. 10, 2007). Although the Guidelines provide an initial benchmark, “the sentencing court may not presume that the Guidelines range isreasonable.”

United States v. Pauley

, 511 F.3d 468,473 (4 Cir. 2007)(citing

Gall

, 128 S.Ct. at

596). Further, while a court is required to give consideration to the Guidelines, “

Booker

‘permitsthe court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well.’”

Kimbrough v. United States

, 128 S.Ct. 558, 2007 WL 4292040, at *10 (Dec. 10, 2007)(citing

Gall

, 2007 WL 4292116,and quoting

United States v. Booker

, 543 U.S. at 245-46).

Case 3:09-cr-00030-nkm Document 23 Filed 12/02/2009 Page 2 of 10

Darius Hampton is apparently a cousin of Michael Terry’s whose identity Terry had

assumed.3As set forth below, after considering the sentencing guidelines and the statutorysentencing factors, a sentence of nine years (108 months) is tailored to Shemorry’s particular circumstances and is sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.

A.A sentence of nine years coupled with a period of federal supervision is a fairsentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achievelegitimate goals of sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1))

In approximately February, 2009, Shemorry and his wife, who had been living inCharlottesville, decided to take a vacation to New Orleans, Louisiana. In anticipation of the trip,Shemorry’s wife quit her job. Shemorry’s wife invited an acquaintance, Kirk Chauncey(“Chauncey”), from Richmond to join them, and the three then drove to New Orleans. Shortlyafter their arrival in New Orleans, while trying to obtain drugs, Shemorry’s wife met a man whointroduced himself as Darius Hampton. Mr. Hampton’s real name, however, was Michael Terry(hereinafter referred to as “Terry”). Terry told the couple a sad story about how he came to New

Orleans to get over the murder of his fiancee and her two children in Jacksonville, Florida. Thisstory was also untrue. The couple and their acquaintances spent several days partying in NewOrleans before the couple decided to move to New Orleans permanently. Shemorry and his wifefelt sorry for and wanted to help Terry and invited him to return with them to Charlottesville.Chauncey warned the couple that Terry was not being honest with them. As a result, Shemorry’swife became upset with Chauncey and decided that they did not have room in the car to returnhim to Richmond. He was then left homeless in New Orleans. He lived in a homeless shelter for

Case 3:09-cr-00030-nkm Document 23 Filed 12/02/2009 Page 3 of 10