You are on page 1of 16

CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111      ooofff

     111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333222444

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RITA A. CRUNDWELL ) ) ) ) )

No. 12 CR 50027 Judge Philip G. Reinhard

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR UPWARD VARIANCE The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by GARY S. SHAPIRO, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits the following motion for upward variance: I. DISCUSSION In United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 767 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory. United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782, 785 (7th Cir. 2005). Booker further held that appellate courts must now review sentences for reasonableness. United States v. Rodriguez-Alvarez, 425 F.3d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765-66). “Pursuant to Booker, the reasonableness of a sentence is guided by the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Alburay, 415 F.3d at 786. These factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the seriousness of the offense; (4) the sentence necessary to promote respect for the law; (5) the sentence necessary to provide just punishment for the offense; (6) the sentence that would provide adequate deterrence; (7) the sentence needed to provide defendant with needed educational training, medical care, etc.; (8)

3d 481. But see United States v. 496 F. 2008)(stating: “An above-guidelines sentence is more likely to be reasonable if it is based on factors ‘sufficiently particularized to the individual circumstances of the case’ rather than factors ‘common to offenders with like crimes. The Seventh Circuit “‘will uphold an aboveguidelines sentence so long as the district court offered an adequate statement of its reasons. 2012) (quoting United States v. United States v.3d 784.S. 520 F. 505 F.’‘the district court may apply those departure guidelines by way of analogy’ when analyzing the factors in 18 U. § 3553(a). Guyton. 2011).” United States v. Miranda.C. Rice. 791 (7th Cir. 552 2 .’ Wachowiak.” ” United States v.3d 989. it must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. 670 F. Jackson. 320 n. If a district court decides that an outside the Guidelines sentence is warranted. 2008). Munoz. 2010)).3d 316. 792 (7th Cir. 484 (7th Cir.C. United States.3d 785. Id. 425 F. “Although ‘[t]he concept of departures has been rendered obsolete in post-Booker sentencing. for imposing such a sentence. United States v. Gall v. and (9) the sentencing guidelines range. 2 (7th Cir. Rodriguez-Alvarez. 636 F.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      222      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333222555 the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who’ve been found guilty of the same offense(s).3d at 750”). (citing United States v. 821 (7th Cir. 2007)). 2008)). 547 F. McIntyre. consistent with 18 U. The district court’s duty is to properly calculate the guidelines range and then come up with a reasonable sentence under § 3553(a). Lucas.3d at 1045.S. 531 F. § 3553(a). 792-93 (7th Cir.3d 786.3d 811. 994 (7th Cir. 610 F.

3(a). Pursuant to Guidelines §§ 3D1. 626 F.1(a)(1) and a 2 level increase pursuant to Guideline § 2S1. This calculation includes a base offense level of 35 pursuant to Guideline § 2S1.S.1(b)(1)(M) because the loss as a result of the offense was more than $50. 41.2(c) and 3D1. PSR at 40.C.1(b)(2)(B) because the stipulated offense constitutes a violation of 18 U.S. 3 1 . 2010).000. defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud as charged in the indictment and stipulated to committing money laundering in violation of 18 U. R. 2 levels pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.000. United States v. § 1956. This calculation includes a base offense level of 7 provided by Guideline § 2B1.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      333      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333222666 U. PSR at 26. ¶¶ 6-7. The All citations to the record are denoted "R" and followed by the applicable document number.3d 940.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense involved sophisticated means.1 The PSR has calculated defendant’s offense level for the wire fraud conviction as 35. In the plea agreement. the offense of conviction and the stipulated offense are grouped together resulting in a total offense level of 37.C. The PSR has calculated the offense level for the stipulate offense of money laundering offense as 37. 38. A sentence above the range is more likely to be reasonable if it is based on factors sufficiently particularized to the individual circumstances of the case rather than factors common to offenders with like crimes. and 2 levels pursuant to Guideline § 3B1. 952 (7th Cir. PSR at 33. PSR at 34-35. 45.1(a) and enhancements as follows: 24 levels pursuant to Guideline § 2B1. Aljabari. All citations to the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report are denoted "PSR" and followed by the applicable paragraph number. PSR at 27-31. 50 (2007). § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).S.3 because defendant abused a position of public trust.

The name of the account was “RSCDA . Defendant did not disclose the existence of this account to the City of Dixon. defendant transferred over $181. shortly after creating the RSCDA account.Reserve Fund.” Id. defendant began transferring money from City of Dixon accounts and converting it to her own use.000 to the RSCDA account All references to government exhibits are denoted “G. 4. In 1970. The initials “RSCDA” stood for “Reserve Sewer Capital Development Account. Defendant created the RSCDA account to use to deposit funds that she stole from various City of Dixon accounts. However. 1990. 79. Ex. PSR at 75. the application of the § 3553(a) factors to the defendant warrant an upward variance to defendant’s total offense level of at least 4 levels.” followed by the applicable exhibit number. In January 1991.” although no such account actually existed for the City of Dixon. Illinois. PSR at 79. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics of the Defendant The nature and circumstances of the offense and defendant’s history and characteristics warrant a sentence above the Guidelines range. Illinois while still in high school. Defendant commenced her scheme to defraud the City of Dixon on December 18. A. that was in the name of the City of Dixon. 4 2 . defendant began working for finance department for the City of Dixon. Ex.2 As set forth in Government Exhibits 1-4. Id. Id. PSR at 16.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      444      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333222777 government agrees with the Guidelines calculations contained in the PSR. In 1983. G. when she opened a secret account at Fifth Third Bank in Dixon. as explained below. defendant was appointed as the comptroller/treasurer for the City of Dixon.

During the course of the scheme. Defendant’s fraud scheme resulted in the City of Dixon having to make various cuts to its budget and these cuts had a significant impact on the operations of the City of Dixon. Id. As the scheme continued. Government Exhibit 5 further sets forth some of the personal expenditures that defendant made using City of Dixon funds during the same time period that she attending those meetings and advising the City of Dixon representatives that they needed to make budget cuts due to a lack of funds. PSR at 78. she participated in budgeting meetings with City Council members and various department heads for the City of Dixon. RC Quarter Horses. defendant repeatedly stated that the City needed to make spending cuts due to a lack of sufficient funds. she was stealing millions of dollars from the City of Dixon.8 million in 2008. Defendant started her horse breeding business. Id. Id. Summaries of the Dixon City Council minutes regarding the budgeting process for the years 1991-2012 are contained in Government Exhibit 5.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      555      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333222888 that she converted to her own use in 1991. defendant took over $53 million from the City of Dixon. the yearly amounts that defendant stole from the City of Dixon increased from $181. At the time defendant was making those statements.000 in 1991 to a high of over $5.5 million dollars per year over the 20 year course of the scheme. LLC in 1990. Defendant stated that the lack of funds was due to a downturn in the economy and because the State of Illinois was behind in its payments. Defendant took an average of over $2. During those meetings. While defendant was taking these large sums of money from the City of Dixon. Defendant used millions of dollars in City of Dixon funds to 5 .

Ex. Defendant and her horses won numerous awards at those competitions including defendant being named the leading owner by the American Quarter Horse Association for eight consecutive years prior to her arrest. Defendant used fraud proceeds to travel throughout the country during the course of her scheme to defraud to compete with at national and international quarter horse competitions. Defendant also used the fraud proceeds to purchase the property where she operated her horse breeding business and to construct buildings on the property. Id. In addition. Defendant purchased land on Dutch Road in Dixon and constructed a house on that property. Id. Wisconsin. Id. Id.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      666      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333222999 run and expand the operations of RC Quarter Horses. defendant also boarded horses in several other states. defendant also hosted an annual birthday party in Venice Beach. Government Exhibit 5 contains a two page list of the vehicles that defendant purchased with fraud proceeds and that have been seized for forfeiture. Id. Id. and other vehicles. 5. trucks. defendant owned over 400 quarter horses. Id. Defendant also used City of Dixon funds to renovate her home in Dixon and to purchase a home in Florida. A news article describing the January 2010 party is contained in Government Exhibit 5. semi-tractor trailers. At the time of her arrest in April 2012. Id. defendant purchased numerous vehicles including a $2 million motor home. horse trailers. G. Defendant also purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars in jewelry. Between January 2007 and January 2012. While the majority of the horses were kept at her ranch and home in Dixon and at a ranch in Beloit. Florida. Although the article claims that the 6 .

$4.70 in January 2012.496. Defendant disguised the source of the funds and created fictitious invoices to hide the theft. defendant went to elaborate steps to conceal the detection of her fraud so that she could continue to her scheme. $3. defendant engaged in an on-going and continuous course of criminal conduct for over 20 years prior to her arrest in this case. Defendant created fictitious invoices purportedly from the State of Illinois to justify the withdrawals from the City’s Capital Development Fund. $4. while having no prior convictions.300 in January 2007.25 in January 2009. she executed this scheme for over 20 years.687 in January 2008. Day after day. While defendant has no prior criminal history. and $4. defendant would work with employees of the City of Dixon and interact with citizens in her capacity as comptroller while lying about the reason the City of Dixon lacked funds and concealing the fact that she was stealing millions of dollars from the City. Those credit card records further show that defendant paid similar amounts to the same restaurant on her birthdays as follows: $2.47 in January 2011.603. PSR at 16.457. to cover up her transfer of $350. 2009 to the 7 . In addition to merely taking the money. defendant’s American Express credit card records show that she paid $4.000 in City of Dixon funds on September 8. for more than 20 years.143 to the restaurant on the date of the party. Thus.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      777      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333000 party was hosted by defendant’s boyfriend. The lengthy of the scheme also weighs in favor of a sentence above the Guidelines range. For example. Defendant’s conduct in continuing to take millions of dollars from the City of Dixon to support her living of this lavish lifestyle while she knew that the City of Dixon was in dire financial straits was especially egregious.

Defendant created 159 such fictitious invoices between 2001 and 2012 to help to conceal her fraud scheme. In the PSR. B. Application note 19 of Guideline 2B1. A copy of that invoice created by defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. defendant created a fictitious invoice to support the payment of $350. Section 3353(a)(2)(A). the loss calculation for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines does not adequately reflect the seriousness of defendant’s fraud and money laundering offenses. United States Code.” In the present case. Seriousness of the Offense Pursuant to Title 18.000 to the State of Illinois that falsely indicated that the payment was for a sewer project in the City of Dixon that the State of Illinois completed. an upward departure may be warranted.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      888      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333111 RSCDA account so that defendant could purchase the horse.1 states: “There may be cases in which the offense level determined under this guideline substantially understates the seriousness of the offense. R. the Probation Officer states that the loss caused by defendant’s fraud offenses was $53. this loss figure does not adequately reflect the full extent of the harm caused by defendant’s fraud. ¶ 7(d). Pizzazy Lady.740.” The application note goes on to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors a district court should consider in determining whether an upward departure (or variance) is 8 . All of these relating to defendant’s history and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the offense weigh in favor of a sentence above the guidelines range. PSR at 19. In such cases. 45. a district court must consider the “seriousness of the offense. when imposing a sentence.394. While the United States agrees that the Probation Officer has correctly calculated the fraud loss.

419 F.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      999      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333222 appropriate. at 1087-1090.3d 1084. In Pabey. application note 19(A)(ii). at 1091. . that the loss of public confidence is both a non-monetary harm as defined in application note 19 of USSG § 2B1. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when determined that an upward departure from the Guidelines range of 27-33 months was warranted and imposed a sentence of 60 months. embezzled funds and used government workers to renovate a home he purchased for his daughter.1. and a disruption of government function. “if the defendant’s conduct resulted in significant disruption of a government function. Paulus. the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range to reflect the nature and extent of the disruption and the importance of the governmental function affected. the mayor of East Chicago. Pursuant to Guideline § 5K2. Id. USSG § 5K2. 1099. One of these factors is whether: “[t]he offense caused . 664 F. the defendant.7.” This guideline does not apply to cases involving offenses such as bribery or obstruction of justice where interference with a government function is inherent in the offense. United States v. 696-699 (finding that the 9 . See also.” USSG § 2B1. The Seventh Circuit has held that where a defendant’s actions result in a loss of public confidence in the honesty and integrity of elected officials. 2011). Id.1. The Court found that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors which included the district court’s finding that Pabey’s actions caused a loss of public confidence in the honesty and integrity of elected officials and that this loss of confidence was both a non-monetary harm and a disruption of government function. substantial nonmonetary harm. United States v. at 1099. Pabey.7. . Id.3d 693. 1099 (7th Cir.

3d 1493. United States v. at 1494. 1500 n. in part. In so finding. a more than 50 percent increase over the maximum sentence possible at the lower offense level. The district court found that Gunby’s conduct caused a significant disruption of a governmental function and increased Gunby’s offense level from 16 to 20. Id.7). In Gunby. The enhancement for disruption of a government function can be applied to sentences for theft of government resources and when the disruption was a loss of public confidence in the government. Id. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it inferred that the revelations of embezzlement and tax evasion by a chief magistrate judge shook the confidence of the county residents in the integrity of the court system. 1502 (11th Cir. Id. which raised the sentencing range from 21-27 months to 33-41 months. Gunby. 1997).CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111000      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333333 court did not err in departing upward and increasing defendant’s offense level by six levels based. 10. the defendant pleaded guilty to mail and tax fraud relating to his embezzlement of filing fees from a county magistrate court over which he presided. the 10 . The Court further rejected the defendant’s argument that there was no evidence of disruption of a government function because there was no evidence that any of the cases handled by Gunby were affected by his crimes. 112 F. Id. at 1503. at 1502. Id. The district court sentenced Gunby to 41 months. on the fact that defendant’s conduct of accepting bribes as a state prosecutor in exchange for leniency on criminal cases he prosecuted caused a significant disruption of government function pursuant to Guideline § 5K2.

In addition. In 2008. Due to the lack of available funds caused by defendant’s fraud scheme. due to the delay of the project. In 2002. in the 10 years prior to defendant’s arrest. In the present case. the City of Dixon constructed a new waste water treatment facility. Id. However.8 million from the City of Dixon. the City of Dixon reduced the staff of its Street Department from 9 to 6 by not replacing employees who retired. defendant’s fraud offenses have also caused both nonmonetary harm and the disruption of governmental function.000 upgrade to the radio equipment for its squad cars and was not able to make new hires due to lack of funds.000 maintenance project at the waste water treatment facility which involved the sandblasting and repainting of screw pump to prevent rusting due to the lack of funds. Due to defendant’s theft of funds from the City of Dixon. the cost 11 . the police department was prevented from making an approximate $80. the City of Dixon was only able to resurface 60 blocks of the over 100 miles of city streets and has not been able to upgrade the trucks used by the Street Department.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111111      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333444 Court found that the term “disruption” encompasses this loss of confidence in the government. the City had to postpone an $80. the year that defendant stole over $5.7. The City of Dixon completed the maintenance of the waste water treatment facility in August 2012 after defendant’s arrest. The loss of public confidence caused by defendant’s conduct in executing the wire fraud scheme constitutes a significant impairment of government function as contemplated by Guideline § 2K2. Defendant’s conduct in this case warrants a substantial variance upward from the guidelines range.

PSR at 79. she also collected a salary from the City.3d 698 (district court was permitted to take judicial notice of the fact that public confidence in the state judicial system had been undermined in making the determination that the defendant’s conduct in caused a significant disruption of government function). due to the budget problems the City was facing. In 2011. 419 F. the City of Dixon was forced to issue bonds in the amount of $3 million in order to meet its financial obligations. As shown in Government Exhibit 1.6 million from the City of Dixon in 2011. Prior to defendant’s arrest in April 2012. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that defendant’s conduct has caused a loss of public confidence in the government for the City of Dixon. During the three years prior to defendant’s arrest. none of the City of Dixon employees received pay raises and when employees retired no one was hired to replace them.000. Defendant’s theft of over $53 million dollars from the City of Dixon during a 20 year period while she was employed as the City’s comptroller has caused a loss of confidence in the City of Dixon’s governmental officials resulting in a significant disruption of governmental function. While defendant was stealing millions of dollars from the City of Dixon.000 to over $400. defendant stole over $4. The government has also attached a sample of the news articles that have reported the loss of confidence that the citizens of Dixon has expressed in their governmental officials as a result of defendant’s conduct in stealing $53 million from the City of Dixon while employed as the City’s 12 . See Paulus. the City of Dixon department heads were considering layoffs of certain employees due to the severe budget crisis.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111222      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333555 increased from $80.

Defendant’s conduct in stealing $53 million from the City of Dixon over a 20 year time period while she was employed as the City’s comptroller. Paulus. Ex. Gunby and Paulus. 419 F. Gunby. 112 F. 112 F. 7. Gunby and Paulus. See Pabey. warrants a variance above the applicable guidelines range in at least the same proportion imposed by the judges in Pabey. the district court judges imposed sentences that varied upward from the guidelines range by at least 4 levels based in part on a finding of disruption of governmental function. G.3d at 696-699.000 by a magistrate judge during a five year period. Citizens of Dixon have questioned the integrity and competence of other City officials and employees as a result of defendant’s conduct.3d at 1091.3d at 1502 (4 level increase). which was of much greater magnitude in terms of the amount of the loss and duration of the fraud scheme. Therefore. In Pabey. Id. Pabey. Paulus. The loss of public confidence caused by defendant’s conduct is at least equivalent to the loss of public confidence caused by the embezzlement of approximately $14.000 by a mayor during a two year period.3d at 1091. 664 F.3d at 1502. and the accepting of $48. A disruption of government function departure can be applied in conjunction with an enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust pursuant to Guideline § 13 . 664 F. Gunby. severely undermined the confidence that the citizens of Dixon have in their government.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111333      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333666 comptroller. 419 F.3d at 696-699 (6 level increase). the embezzlement of $400. the significant impairment of governmental function caused by defendant’s conduct. 1099. 1099 (departed upward from Guidelines range of 27-33 months and imposed a sentence of 60 months).000 in bribes by a state prosecutor during a two year period.

C.7). A sentence above the Guidelines range is necessary to provide a just punishment for her crimes as well as to provide deterence in order to ensure that she does not commit further crimes.3. In addition. Defendant engaged in the scheme to defraud the City of Dixon for over 20 years. See Gunby. the abuse of public trust enhancement is based on the fact that defendant used her position as comptroller to commit and conceal her fraud and money laundering offenses. PSR at 31. Other 3553(a) Factors Weigh in Favor of an Upward Variance A variance above the Guidelines range is necessary to promote respect for the law. The disruption of governmental function departure is based on the loss of public confidence in the City of Dixon government officials due to defendant’s theft of $53 million dollars during the course of the wire fraud scheme defendant committed during a 20 year time period. jeopardizing their well-being and safety. sentencing court can apply §§ 3B1. a sentence above the 14 .CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111444      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333777 3B1. Defendant continued to take millions of dollars as she turned a blind eye to the fact that the City of Dixon was facing severe financial hardship and forced to reduce the services it provided to its citizens. there is no evidence that defendant ever intended to cease her scheme to defraud the City of Dixon.3d at 1501 (holding that because an abuse of public trust and the disruption of a governmental function are analytically distinct. 112 F. provide just punishment and to provide general and specific deterence. Here. Because defendant had to pay for the care of the over 400 horses she had acquired during her fraud scheme and had no other legitimate source of income to continue to finance her horse business.3 and 5K2.

sentence above the guideline range and even create disparity when other § 3553(a) factors warrant it. the United States respectfully moves that this court vary upward from the Guidelines range by adding at least four levels to defendant’s total offense level. GARY S. II.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111555      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333888 Guidelines range is necessary to deter others who contemplate engaging in similar conduct. United States v. 567 F. 907-08 (7th Cir. provide just punishment and to provide general and specific deterence. a sentence above the Guidelines range is warranted because of the nature and circumstances of the offense.3d 901. at 908-09. the need to promote respect for the law. For all of the reasons discussed above. the nonmonetary harm and substantial disruption of government function caused by defendant. a sentence above the Guidelines range in this case will not create unwarranted sentencing disparities. Pedersen JOSEPH C. 2009) Id. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above. defendant’s history and characteristics. SHAPIRO United States Attorney By: s /Joseph C. Considering all of the other § 3553(a) factors. Bartlett. This court may. PEDERSEN Assistant United States Attorney 327 South Church Street Suite 3300 Rockford. the seriousness of the offense. Respectfully submitted. in its discretion. IL 61101 (815) 987-4444 15 .

CRIM. and the General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF). R. LR5. 2013. PEDERSEN Assistant United States Attorney 327 South Church Street Suite 3300 Rockford.5. 5. in accordance with FED. FED. P. Pedersen JOSEPH C.CCCaaassseee:::      333:::111222-­-­-cccrrr-­-­-555000000222777      DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      ###:::      555222      FFFiiillleeeddd:::      000111///333111///111333      PPPaaagggeee      111666      ooofff      111666      PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD      ###:::333333999 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned Assistant United States Attorney hereby certifies that on January 31. R. CIV. By: s /Joseph C. P. Illinois 61101 815-987-4444 . the following document: “United States’ Motion for Upward Variance” was served pursuant to the district court’s ECF system as to ECF filers. 49.