Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kevin Ring Sentencing

Kevin Ring Sentencing

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,643|Likes:
Published by tpmdocs

More info:

Published by: tpmdocs on Oct 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA))Plaintiff,))v.))No. 1:08-cr-00274-ESHKEVIN A. RING,))Defendant.))UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM REGARDING FACTORS TOCONSIDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3553
The United States, by and through its undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits thissentencing memorandum regarding factors to consider pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 indetermining the appropriate sentence for defendant Kevin Ring, whom a jury convicted of conspiracy, payment of an illegal gratuity, and three counts of honest services fraud. The Courthas previously determined that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommended sentencing range is46 to 57 months of incarceration. DE 289. For the reasons stated herein, the Governmentrecommends that the Court sentence Ring to a sentence within the Guidelines range—50 months.In addition, the Government does not recommend that Ring pay a fine, but that Ring be orderedto pay the mandatory special assessments of $500, serve a period of three years of supervisedrelease, and perform community service in lieu of a fine.
I.Applicable Sentencing Law
As stated by the Supreme Court in Gall v. United States, “a district court should begin allsentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range.” 552 U.S. 38, 49(2007). The Guidelines range should be “treat[ed] as ‘the starting point and the initial
Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 292 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 39
 
2 benchmark’ for sentencing.” United States v. Akhigbe, 642 F.3d 1078, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 49). “Then, after giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate,” the court is required to consider all of the sentencingfactors Congress identified in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and undertakes “an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Id.
 
(citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50). In this case, as noted above,the Court has determined that the total offense level for Ring’s conduct is 23, with a guidelinesrange of 46 to 57 months of incarceration. DE 289 at 42.
II.Section § 3553 Factors Strongly Support A Guidelines Sentence
As noted above, the Supreme Court has declared that “[a]s a matter of administration andto secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 49. Thus, the Sentencing Guidelines remain an indispensableresource for assuring appropriate and uniform punishment for federal criminal offenses.While the Guidelines are the starting point used to ensure nationwide consistency, thisCourt must also consider all of the sentencing considerations set forth in § 3553(a). Thosefactors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristicsof the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense,to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need toafford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; (4) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training,medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (5) the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarrantedsentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 
Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 292 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 39
 
Further, courts have recognized that the harm to the public’s confidence in its elected
1
officials is one that is not adequately considered by the sentencing guidelines. See, e.g., UnitedStates v. Saxton, 53 Fed. Appx. 610, 613 (3d Cir. 2002) (affirming three-level upward departurewhere fraud caused non-monetary harm of “loss of public confidence and trust in electedofficials”).3similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). As described below, the relevant sentencing factors warrant the imposition of asentence within the applicable Guidelines range of 46 - 57 months of incarceration.
A.Section 3553(a)(1) -The Long-Term and Extensive Nature andCircumstances of the Offense Support a Guidelines Sentence of Incarceration
In fashioning a reasonable sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the Court mustconsider the nature and circumstances of the offense. The serious and long-term nature of this public corruption scheme supports a Guidelines sentence of 50 months.The decline of public confidence in our democratic institutions in general and in our  public officials in particular is a loss that cannot be lightly cast aside. Courts have repeatedlyrecognized that the type of harm caused by defendant Ring is an intangible harm that can never  be measured in dollars, and is one that cannot easily be remedied:Government corruption breeds cynicism and mistrust of electedofficials. It causes the public to disengage from the democratic process because, as the Court stated at sentencing, the public beginsto think of politics as ‘only for the insiders.’ Thus corruption has the potential to shred the delicate fabric of democracy by making theaverage citizen lose respect and trust in elected officials and give upany hope of participating in government through legitimate channels.
1
United States v. Ganim, 2006 WL 1210984, at *5 (D. Conn. May 5, 2006).The serious nature of Ring’s criminal conduct and blatant violations of the public trust,and the direct and adverse impact upon the integrity of the federal government and the citizens’
Case 1:08-cr-00274-ESH Document 292 Filed 10/11/11 Page 3 of 39

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->