SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION ~ FELONY BRANCH ‘THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Docket No. 2009-CF1-9230 vy. : Judge Gerald I. Fisher INGMAR GUANDIQUE Sentencing: February 11, 2011 GOVERNMI MEMORANDUM _IN AID OF SENTENCING Defendant Ingmar Guandique now stands before the Court convicted of two counts of First Degree Felony Murder, arising from the kidnapping and attempted robbery of Chandra Levy. The United States of America, by its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, respectfully submits this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing to assist the Court in fashioning the appropriate sentence in this case. In light of the fact that Mr. Guandique has demonstrated predatory behavior that seems incapable of rehabilitation and thus, poses a grave danger to the community, expresses no remorse, refuses to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct, and of course, has caused thedeath of Ms. Levy with terrible and lasting consequences to her family, her friends and the other victims whom he attacked in Rock Creek Park, the government recommends that this Court impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, pursuant to 22 D.C. Code § 2104-01. I. Procedural and Factual Background On May 19, 2009, a grand jury returned a six count indictment charging Ingmar Guandique with, among other crimes, the Felony Murder of Chandra Levy, based upon kidnapping and attempted robbery, with aggravating circumstances, pursuant to 22 D.C. Code § 2104.01. On October 16, 2009, the government filed written notice that, in the eventof conviction, defendant would be eligible for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release pursuant to D.C. Code 22-2104.01. On October 18, 2010, this case proceeded to trial. During the course of the government's case-in-chief, the evidence established that defendant, according to his own version of events, violently assaulted Ms. Levy, as he had others, who was doing nothing more than taking a walk on a beautiful Spring day in May 2001, Specifically, the jury learned that during the period between May 1, 2001 and July 1, 2001, defendant committed a series of attacks or attempted attacks upon young female joggers, namely Amber Fitzgerald (May 1, 2001), Chandra Levy (May 1, 2001), Halle Shilling (May 14, 2001) and Christy Wiegand (July 1, 2002), as they were jogging along deserted trails in Rock Creek Park, With the exception of Amber Fitzgerald (which can best be described as an aborted attack), Mr. Guandique followed his targeted victims for a substantial distance, waited for an opportunity when they were winded or isolated, and then attacked the women by tackling them from behind, grabbing them around the neck and attempting to drag them to the ground and then, off the trail and deeper into the woods. In each instance, and despite the fact that defendant would later describe these attacks as attempted robberies to obtain money for drugs, he took nothing, but rather, fled the scene when the women, namely Halle Shilling and Christy Wiegand, successfully fought him off and screamed for help. Ms. Levy was the lone and tragic exception. With respect to Chandra Levy, who was 24 years old and unlike the other victims, small ofstature and unfamiliar with the trails of Rock Creek Park, defendant later confessed to his cellmate that on May 1, 2001, and while in the Park, he saw Ms. Levy walk past him wearing a jogger’s pouch or fanny pack. At that point, according to Mr. Guandique, he 2determined that she would not escape him as had the others; a veiled but clear reference to Amber Fitzgerald, who testified that Mr. Guandique followed her in the Parkin the vicinity of Klingle Mansion, only hours before Ms. Levy wasattacked. Defendant described further how he hid behind some bushes or trees, waiting for Ms. Levy to pass within striking range. As she passed by him, he sprung from his hiding place, grabbed her in a stranglehold around the neck, and dragged her by the neck off the path and deeper into the woods. According to Mr. Guandique’s own version of events, Ms. Levy fought back until he believed that she became unconscious or “pretended to be” unconscious. He then stole her jogger’s pouch and left her in the woods. Although defendant denied raping or killing Ms. Levy, and according to him did not learn that she had died until much later when he was questioned by the police, he never explained what the evidence on the scene revealed beyond a reasonable doubt: that defendant left Chandra Levy in the woods completely naked and bound with her own running tights. Guandique's confession regarding the events resulting in Ms. Levy's death was corroborated by the evidence found on the scene, as presented by the Mobile Crime technicians and the testimony of Sheila Phillips and Iris Portillo. Specifically, both Ms. Phillipsand Ms. Portillo, who had no particular bias against defendant, testified that during the time frame of the Levy murder, defendant had visible scratches on his face and chest. Defendant's explanation forhis injuries, accrediting them toa fight with Ms, Portillo and/or an incident in which he was robbed, was inconsistent and incredible. The jury also learned that defendant was arrested on July 1, 2001, and provided law enforcement with a completely self-serving and minimalized version of events. In essence, defendant initially denied attacking Christy Wiegand, but ultimately “admitted” that shebumped into him while he was massaging a cramp in his leg that occurred while he was jogging on the trail. As she bumped into him, or so he claimed, they both fell down, Ms. Wiegand started to scream, and he ran away. After further denying the attack upon Halle Shilling, defendant finally admitted that approximately a month prior to his arrest, he was jogging in the Park behind a woman who accidentally tripped and stumbled to the ground infront ofhim. When he tried to help her up, the woman, Halle Shilling, started to scream, so he fled, Defendant volunteered nothing with respect to Chandra Levy, who was still missing at the time. Following this evidence and a great deal of other testimony, which the Court heard first hand, the jury convicted defendant of both counts of First Degree Felony Murder. As a result, defendant stands before this Court facing a mandatory minimum period of incarceration of thirty years with a potential maximum sentence of life without the possibility of release. Il, General Sentencing Considerations ‘The Court has wide latitude in deciding what information it can consider when imposing sentence: ‘The sentencing court must be permitted to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper Sentence for the particular. defendant, given the cr committed, ‘This discretion includes the right to consider information concerning other illegal acts in which the defendant has been involved if that information may reasonably bear on the sentencing decision. Yemson v. United States, 764 A.2d 816, 819 (D.C. 2001) (citations omitted); seealso Greene United States, 571 A.2d 218, 220 (D.C. 1990) (“sentencing court may consider all the evidence presented at trial, including evidence of charges on which appellant was 4acquitted”); Caldwell v. United States, 595 A.2d 961, 966 (D.C. 1991) (“[I]t is well settled that trial judges have great latitude in the sentencing process. The court may examine any reliable evidence, including that which was not introduced at trial, and may consider a wide range of facts concerning a defendant's character and his crime.”). ‘Thus, in deciding the appropriate sentence in this case, the Court“may conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited aso the kind of information received and the source from which itis received.” Powe! v. United States, 588 A.2d 1166, 1169 (D.C. 1991). It may “examine any reliable evidence, including that which was not introduced at trial, and may consider a wide range of acts concerning a defendant 's character and his crime.” Id. Ill. Government’s Sentencing Recommendation In light of the factors set forth below, the government recommends that defendant besentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, pursuant to D.C. Code 29-2104.01, which is also in keeping with the recommendation of the Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) writer, who urges the Court to sentence defendant to “the maximum penalty allowed by law.” PSR at 22. As explained below, the government believes that such a lengthy term of incarceration is warranted based upon certain facts specific to this case. Defendant is a Danger to the Community Due to His Predatory and Violent Nature Ingmar Guandique's murder conviction in this case, alone, is a powerful insight into his extremely dangerous nature. Unfortunately, Ms. Levy's murder is just one example, among many, of defendant's dangerousness and his capacity for violence against women. Despite the negative repercussions, including incarceration and social ostracization, that defendant has received since his teens for his predilection to taunt and terrorize women, heappears unable to curb or control his impulses. As a result, he is, and will always continue to be, a grave danger to society. 4. Attacks on Women in Rock Creek Park This Court isalready intimately familiar with defendant's other attacks upon women in Rock Creek Park during a three month period in 2001, attacks which bear marked similarities to what we know about the murder of Chandra Levy. In both the assault upon Halle Shilling and Christy Wiegand, just as with Ms. Levy, defendant watched and waited for his perfect victim to cross his path. He preferred women, who regardless of size or physical appearance, were alone and presumably unaware of their surroundings or who, because they were wearing headphones, were unlikely to hear his approach from behind. Once defendant spotted such a victim, he patiently and determinedly waited for the perfect chance to attack them, often following them for at least a mile, until the ideal opportunity presented itself: a location where there were no witnesses in an isolated part of the woods, preferably densely forested with the noise of Rock Creek Park drowning out any screams forhelp, andat atime, when the women were winded and tired, and thus, more vulnerable. Differences of size, weight, and athletic ability were no deterrence once defendant made his choice of prey. The attack itself was sudden, and without warning, ina manner that more than suggests that his main purpose was not a robbery, as he would later claim and try to convince others, including his girlfriend and cell mates, but a sexual assault. As Halle Shilling remarked in her statement to Judge Noel Kramer and before anything was known about the crime against Chandra Levy: ‘Though my attacker has pled guilty to assault and attempted robbery, I reject outright the notion that he was out to rob me. He left my walkman behind on He never spoke a word to me, except to say “Shhhh” when I 6began screaming. . .. This attack was a physical one, pure and simple, and were it not for the training I had in a self defense class, it could have ended much differently. Again, I do not doubt for a minute that he purposefully stalked me as a hunter tracks his prey. Victim Impact Statement of Halle Shilling, filed in United States v, Ingmar Guandique, 2001 Fel 0040507 (Kramer, J.), at 2 (emphasisadded). Given that no one - not the victims, not the court that sentenced Mr. Guandique, not the presentence report writer who interviewed him at the time, and certainly, not the government -- believed that Mr. Guandique was a mere purse snatcher, there is little doubt that we have yet to learn Mr. ‘Guandique’s real intentions, Clearly, his motivation is so perverse, as evidenced by the way Ms, Levy's clothing was discovered on the scene of her death, that Mr. Guandique can tell noone, not even a hardened criminal like Armando Morales, what he did to Chandra Levy and what he wanted to do to Halle Shilling and Christy Wiegand. But unfortunately, these three women are not the only vietims of his strange appetites. 2 Attacks on Wome: El Salvador Itis the government's position that Mr. Guandique's attacks upon women did not begin in Rock Creek Park, but rather predate his arrival in the United States. In the Presentence Report, Mr. Guandique led the PSR writer to believe that he “migrated to the United States at age of nineteen in search of a better future,” PSR at 21, and that once here, he maintained “consistent employment throughout his stay.” Id. at 17. This version of events is misleading. To the contrary, during the investigation of this case, the government learned, and then confirmed, that defendant fled El Salvador because he was suspected of attacking a woman at knife point on an isolated trail in the village of Cooperativa San Jacinto.During the grand jury investigation of this case, the government received reports that, defendant was suspected of attacking a woman, who for purposes of this Memorandum will be referred to as “Gloria,” on June 13, 1999, as she was walking on an isolated trail in her village. AUSA Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez, and Detective Emilio Martinez of the Metropolitan Police Department successfully located the woman in El Salvador and learned first hand about the details of the attack. Specifically, “Gloria” stated that she was walking by herself on an dirt trail, in Ingmar Guandique’s hometown of San Jacinto when she suddenly looked back and saw a young man behind her, crouching slightly off the trail on amildly elevated hill. As“Gloria” glanced back, the young man tried to hide, but then, upon being spotted, jumped up and ran in her direction. At that point, and seeing that he was armed with a knife, “Gloria” fled in terror. She realized that the young man was clearly gaining on her and turned around just as he reached her. At that point, the young man pushed “Gloria” down to the ground and stabbed her between her shoulder blades, injuring her spinal cord. The young man then ran off. According to the woman, at no point did her attacker say anything or try to take anything from her, The woman, unable to move, lay on the ground for approximately two hours until some men on horseback found her and summoned help. As a result of the injuries sustained during the attack, the woman was hospitalized for a month and, to this day, needs the assistance of a cane in order to walk. Upon being interviewed, the woman stated that she was not sure who attacked her. Nonetheless, she described her attacker as approximately18 to 20 years of age, slim build, ‘although the entire name of this woman can be disclosed to the Court and defense counsel in camera, the government has chosen to keep the victim's name confidential in its Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing, as the woman remains very fearful of both repercussions arising from the attack and media attention.of white or light complexion, with a “sharp” face, who was approximately 5'6” to 5'7" in height, which is consistent with Mr. Guandique. Indeed it was the impression of the interviewers, that while “Gloria” probably did know the identity of her attacker, she was afraid to identify him. She also revealed that it is commonly believed in her village that Mr. Guandique, who she knew only as a child, was responsible for the attack. She explained farther that defendant was suspected by some of her neighbors of committing other attacks against village women, including an incident involving a young woman who was raped and murdered near one of the local creeks, “Gloria” volunteered that she also heard that Mr. Guandique followed a neighbor's daughter, who was walking on trail by herself, and that the daughter had to flee to escape. And of course, defendant told others that, while in El Salvador, he and his fellow gang members had committed many crimes against women, including rapes.* See Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant, (Witness 10), at page 5. Moreover, these troubling suspicions concerning defendant emerged long before Ms. Levy was murdered and indeed were in large part the reason behind his emigration. Through its investigation, the government learned and confirmed that in late 1999 or early 2000, defendant's family members raised money to send him to the United States, not to better himself, but rather, because they knew he was suspected of stabbing a woman in his village and were concerned that the victim’s family was seeking to retaliate, If true, Mr Guandique fled El Salvador to escape prosecution or retaliation for his crime in his native county only to commit similar attacks against a number of women in his adopted country. *Defendant also confessed that while in El Salvador, about five months prior to immigrating to the United States, he tried to rob a man of his cap, but fled when someone came to his aid, See Pre-Sentence Report, United States v. Ingmar Guandique (Campbell, J.), 2001-FEL- 2793,dated August 6, 2001, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, at 9.And certainly, the similarities between the attack in El Salvador and those in Rock Creek Park are blatantly apparent. Given this disturbing pattern of violence against women, the government fears that the community can never be safe from Ingmar Guandique. 3. The Somerset Burglary As reflected in the PSR report, Guandique was previously convicted of attempted second degree burglary. See United States v. Ingmar Guandique, Case No. 2001-FEL-2793, (Campbell, J.). Once again, defendant's record of conviction does not adequately reflect the fact that this offense, like all the others, involves strange and disturbing undertones pertaining to a woman victim. As gleaned from police reports and witness statements generated at the time of the offense, on May 7, 2001, and while he was also attacking women in Rock Creek Park, defendant broke into an apartment at 1418 Somerset Place, Northwest, which was in the same apartment building where he lived. Although noone was home when defendant committed the burglary, the female resident arrived home a short while later with her young daughter. Almost immediately, the woman heard a noise emanating from her bedroom and upon investigation, discovered defendant hiding there When she screamed in fear, defendant fled, but was soon apprehended by police and identified as the perpetrator. Defendant later pled guilty. What bears noting about this seemingly innocuous burglary, however, is defendant's own perception of the offense. During his interview with the community supervision officer who prepared the pre-sentence report, defendant stated that he heard the woman return home, but that he remained at the scene so that he could see and hear her reaction. According to defendant: -10-Itook [the lady’s] ring and I left the apartment, I was standing by the laundry room next door when I heard her come into the building. She found the front door unlocked to the apartment. I heard her tell her daughter not to go into the bedroom. Then I got close to her front door, and I knelt down to look through the gap under the door. I wanted to hear her reaction before I left. Exhibit “A” at 5. This statement understandably alarmed the community supervision officer as it offered direct proof that defendant received some sort of voyeuristic thrill from watching women react in fear - fear that he caused - leading the PSR writer to note: [The defendant]’s employment history dissuades [sic] from believing that the value of the stolen object(s) is the motivating factor, but rather, defendant appears to be drawing some kind of satisfaction in attacking helpless victims. It should be noted that in his statement, the defendant admitted that he remained nearby the scene of the instant offense to hear the reaction of his victim. Exhibit “A” at 10. 4 upon Iris Portillo® Guandique’s violence against women also extended to those he claimed to love. AS the Court may recall from her testimony during trial, Iris Portillo dated and lived with defendant for approximately six to seven months during the time in question, until she ended the relationship and Mr. Guandique was forced to move. Ona number of occasions, specifically, whenever he became jealous, defendant physically assaulted Iris Portillo, who was childlike in appearance, standing a mere 4'11” in heightand weighing only 100 pounds. ‘The Court heard about one such incidentin which defendant punched Iris in the face during an argument. What the jury and the Court did not hear was that on a prior occasion, defendant became enraged with jealousy, telling Ms. Portillo that if he could not have her, *For purposes of this section, the government relies upon interviews with Ms. Portillo and her grand jury testimony, which was previously provided to defense counsel. ienobody would. Defendant then forcefully ripped off Iris’s shirt and viciously bit her on her breast, leaving teeth marks that were visible to several witnesses and a scar that remained for over a year. Ms. Portillo also described how defendant put his hands around her neck and how he would become so angry that he would put his fist through the wall. It is the government's impression, and indeed it explains much of Ms. Portillo's reluctance to come forward in this case, that she was and remains afraid. 5. _ Inappropriate Conduct Towards Women While Incarcerated As noted by the PSR writer, during the past nine years and while serving sentence, defendant has incurred over thirty (30) disciplinary violations. In light of the history discussed above, it is not surprising that a number of these violations involve improper sexual conduct towards women, What follows is a brief sample: On May 23, 2002, and just a scant few months after being sentenced in connection with the assaults upon Christy Wiegand and Halle Shilling, defendant sent a letter, containing two sexually graphic drawings and an obscene statement, toa State Farm. Insurance agent whose address he had obtained through an advertisement flyer. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Discipline Hearing Officer Report, dated May 23, 2002, with attachments, attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” The “artwork,” which Mr. Guandiquesent and presumably drew, depictsthe woman being sodomized. When confronted by prison officials as to why he had sent this obscene letter to-a total stranger, Guandique admitted responsibility, but claimed that he sent the profoundly offensive letter so that he could be transferred to another institution. b. _ Amonthlateron July 19, 2002 ~ after being disciplined for the obscene letter to the insurance agent - Guandique was disciplined again for masturbating in front of a -12-female guard. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Discipline Hearing Officer Report, dated July 19, 2002, with attachments, attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” Defendant denied that he was masturbating, contending that “he was ust trying to see the other hispanics, hishands were up, and he had a basketball cap against the cage.” Id. This indecent exposure was not an isolated incident or innocent mistake, however, but rather was repeated on September 16, 2004, when defendant again was found guilty of masturbating in front of a prison staff member, see Federal Bureau of Prisons Discipline Hearing Officer Report, dated September 16, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit “D,” and April 26, 2006, when defendant exposed himself to another staff member, see Federal Bureau of Prisons Discipline Hearing Officer Report, dated April 26, 2006, attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” c. On November 18, 2003 and June 15, 2004, defendant was sanctioned again forpropositioningastaff nurse. Guandique admitted that he wrote and delivered the letters (indeed, he was caughton videotaped surveillance delivering one of the letters), butclaimed that this was how he expressed his love. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Discipline Hearing Officer Report, dated November 18, 2003 and July 6, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit “F.” Even for prison, where one could assume that morals would naturally be laxer,¢ defendant’s conduct stands apartas abhorrent. His attitude towards women is consistently obsessive, often verging on aggressive if not outright violent behavior. Which leads the government to its next point: that defendant is unable to control himself and thus, will always remain a danger to women. ‘Contrary to what one might assume about life in prison, the government has learned through numerous interviews with defendant's cellmates and associates that his behavior towards the female staff is not considered acceptable but rather deemed to be quite outside the norm. -13-Defendant is a Danger to the Community Because He Has a Compulsion to Commit Crime and Cannot be Rehabilitated lity forone’s Asoften stated, the first step in rehabilitation is acceptance of respon: actions. The government submits that defendant has not accepted responsibility for the crimes he has committed and indeed, cannot do so because he has personally rationalized his behavior. The Court heard how defendant characterized his crimes against women as “mistakes” or “accidents” and refused to admit to even his trusted associates that he raped and murdered Chandra Levy. Tothe contrary, defendant's version of events, which changes to suit his audience, is either over-inflated with grandiose embellishments’ or a completely self-serving, trivialized version of events. Most chillingly, however, is the fact that defendant expresses no remorse. He laughed about his crimes when confiding in Armando Morales and laughed about the murder when interviewed by Detectives Anthony Brigidini and Kenneth Williams in September 2008. Not once, has defendant expressed any concern or sympathy for the victim and her family. And contrary to his continued denials, the jury found him guilty. It is this lack of remorse or empathy for his fellow man that makes defendant such adangertosociety. And indeed, defendant's criminal record does not adequately reflect the true root ofhis dangerousness: his compulsion toattack women. Specifically, in July 2001, at a time when it was clearly in defendant's best interest to present himself in a favorable light to the Court for his upcoming burglary sentencing, he told the PSR writer that he, As the Court may recall, defendant has at times claimed that the murder of Chandra Levy was, among other things, a hired hit by a Congressman, an MS-13 gang- related rape and murder, and an orchestrated killing in response to Ms. Levy’s work with the Bureau of Prisons. ela:Ingmar Guandique, was out of control. Specifically, defendant characterized his conduct as one of compulsion: She [Christy Wiegand] was coming in one direction, and I from the other. I noticed that no one was nearby, so when she got close to me, I pushed her into the ravine, .. . When I’m about to commit an offense, I tell myself to go ahead and do it, but afterwards, I feel bad about it. I feel good when I see someone alone... Then it crosses my mind, that after doing itso many times, I will eventually get caught, Sometimes, I cannot control myself when Isee someone alone in a secluded area with something of value. See Exhibit “A” at 10 (emphasis added). Which led the PSR writer to prophetically state: His arrest history shows that the defendant has transitioned from the role of victim to that of predator, and it is quite clear that he is becoming more psychopathic in his behavior, The defendant appears to be targeting victims that can be overpowered, as well as carefully selecting the location of his crime to minimize the possibility of witnesses and his chances of getting caught. Id. Similarly it was the opinion of the psychologists who interviewed defendant in the fall of 2001 that defendant was a ticking time bomb: Symptomatically, Mr. Guandique’s performance on psychological testing suggests the presence of clinically significant mood instability. On the one hand, he appears to be experiencing depressive-like symptoms including feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and failure, as well as sadness and loss of pleasure in previously enjoyed activities. At times, however, he may show signs of an overly elevated mood such as an unusually high activity level, accelerated thoughts, and a disorganized approach to activities may be experiencing symptoms ofa major mental disorder as well, including unusual perceptual or sensory events... ideas that include magical thinking or delusional beliefs, and confusion and difficulty concentrating ‘See Excerpt from Psychological Assessment, Forensic Health Services, attached hereto as Exhibit “G.” And of course, all of these mental issues were exacerbated by defendant's long term drug andalcohol abuse, which to this day and because of his false reporting, is difficult to assess. fisDefendant is a Danger to the Community Because He is a Member of a Gang which Glorifies Violence Defendant's continuing attempts to minimize his behavior, failure to admit guilt, and lack of remorse all provide support for imposing the maximum sentence of incarceration. But, in addition, defendant is a danger to the community because he has continued to associate witha life of crime while in prison, transforming himself into a full-fledged MS-13 gang member, who appears to relish his “gangsta” persona, See PSR at 21-2 (noting that defendant is an active member of “an infamous and violent Latino gang,”). As the Court is aware, MS-13 has been associated with violence since its founding in Los Angeles in the 1980's. Members are initiated by being beaten up by other gang members and the gang requires members to take part in vicious attacks. In our area, and throughout the country, MS-13 members have been associated with home invasion robberies, drug dealing, violence against rival gangs, including machete attacks, and murder. Less than two months ago, three members of MS-13 were convicted federally on numerous racketeering charges, including murder, leading ICE agents to state “local members of the MS-13 gang operated with of [sic] level of brutality alarming even by street gang standards.” See News Release, “MS-13 Members Convicted of Federal Racketeering Charges,” attached hereto as Exhibit “H" Itis with this organization that defendant chooses to affiliate, covering himself with gang-related tattoos, and calling himself “Chucky,” or “Chacky,” a small, demonie doll who likes toattack women with a knife, See Photographs of Ingmar Guandique, attached hereto as Exhibit “I.” Not surprisingly, Mr. Guandique has bragged to at least one inmate that while on the street, he carried a “Rambo” style knife, that he used to stab his rape victims -16-after he was finished with them. Whether true or not, this is how defendant sees himself. Certainly, he has failed to use his time in prison productively, choosing instead to solidify his lack of compassion and humanity by joining a brutal and vicious gang. Defendant Should be Incarcerated to a Maximum Term to Punish His Actions The government submits that defendant should receive the maximum term of incarceration in this case due to the horrendous nature of his crime. The evidence proved that defendant's actions gave new meaning to the word “senseless.” Defendant targeted a completely random and innocent stranger. He chose one of our national treasures, Rock Creek Park, as his hunting ground. He ended Ms. Levy’s life at the young age of 24, a few days before her graduation, leaving behind her parents, brother, family members and friends to wonder for over a year whether she was alive or dead - a parents’ worse nightmare. And tragically, as the Court learned at trial, Ms. Levy’s final minutes were neither painless nor peaceful. Mr. Guandique then defiled her remains by leaving them in the woods, exposed to the elements. Her family and friends grieve her loss in ways that cannot be fully described in a written submission to the Court or comprehended. The pain of Chandra’s early and violent death will be with her family always. TV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the United States of America, by its counsel, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, respectfully requests that Ingmar Guandique -17-be sentenced to life without the possibility of release pursuant to D.C, Code 22-2104.01. Respectfully submitted, RONALD C. MACHEN JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Cinitdndactassies ‘Amanda Haines Fernando Campoamor Chris Kavanaugh Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney's Office 555 4" Street N.W. Washington, DC 20530 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 7, 2011, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served by first class mail and electronic mailing upon counsel for the defense, Santha Sonenberg and Maria Hawilo, Public Defender Service, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004. ‘Amanda Haines Assistant United States Attorney -18-