Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Chris Niewoehner (Pro Hac Vice) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-3000 Facsimile: (202) 429-3902 cniewoehner@steptoe.com Kelly B. Kramer (Pro Hac Vice) Joseph P. Minta (Pro Hac Vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-5207 kkramer@mayerbrown.com jminta@mayerbrown.com Attorneys for Defendant Richard G. Renzi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD G. RENZI, JAMES W. SANDLIN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:08-cr-00212-TUC-DCB SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF RICHARD G. RENZI

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
V. IV.

Table of Contents
Page INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 4 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 5 I. MR. RENZI'S UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION.................................................................. 5 II. MR. RENZI'S DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS ............................................................................................... 7 III. MR. RENZI'S SERVICE IN CONGRESS ........................................................................ 7 A. B. C. D. Working to Resolve the Bennett Freeze ................................................................ 8 Improving Schools and Education ......................................................................... 8 Providing Affordable Housing Opportunities ........................................................ 9 Building and Improving Healthcare Facilities ....................................................... 9

HELPING OTHERS AND PERSONAL GENEROSITY .............................................. 10 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Sean Minton ......................................................................................................... 10 Phil Cancik ........................................................................................................... 11 Fundraiser for Fallen Capitol Police Officers ...................................................... 11 Erika Hill .............................................................................................................. 12 Support for a Deceased Friend's Daughter .......................................................... 12 Care for Constituents in Need .............................................................................. 12 Donation of Property to the Catholic Church ...................................................... 12

HEALTH ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 13 .................................................................................................................. 13

ARGUMENT I.

THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE BUT ONE FACTOR AMONG ..................... MANY THAT THE COURT MUST CONSIDER ......................................................... 13 A. There is No Basis For any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 1 Offenses Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)......................................................................................................... 14 1. 2. Legal Standards ........................................................................................ 14 The Government Cannot Quantify Any Loss to the Aries Group Under the Second Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) ......................... 15

-2-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 3 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
E. D. C. B. II. B.

3.

The Government Cannot Show that Either Mr. Renzi or Mr. Sandlin Gained Anything of Value Under the Third Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) ................................................................................ 16

There is No Basis For Any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 2 Offenses (Insurance) Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under §2B1.1. ...................................................................................................... 19

MR. RENZI'S HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF HIS OFFENSE WARRANT A NON-GUIDELINES SENTENCE ........ 20 A. Mr. Renzi's Personal History and Characteristics Suggest a BelowGuidelines Sentence ............................................................................................. 21 1. Mr. Renzi's Good Works and Public Service .......................................... 21 2. Mr. Renzi's Family Ties ........................................................................... 22

The Nature and Seriousness of Mr. Renzi's Offenses .......................................... 23 1. 2. The Public Corruption Offenses .............................................................. 23 The Insurance Offenses............................................................................ 25

Mr. Renzi's Conviction, the Proposed Sentence, and His Public Downfall Would Promote Respect for the Law and Effectively Deter Others ......................................................................................................... 26 A Lengthy Prison Sentence Is Not Needed to Protect the Public Because There is No Risk of recidivism .............................................................. 27 A Below-Guidelines Sentence Would Help to Avoid Disparities With Sentences Given to Defendants for Similar Offenses .......................................... 28 .................................................................................................................. 29

CONCLUSION

-3-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 4 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INTRODUCTION Mr. Renzi has lived a life dedicated to his family, his community, and his faith. As a Member of Congress, he helped to improve the lives of many constituents who faced issues of poverty, poor health care, and a lack of basic housing. He was a dedicated member of the pro-life movement, and through his expertise and hard work created an innovative insurance program that was crucial to the continued viability of the thousands of crisis pregnancy centers that were vital to the movement’s efforts. As a husband and father, he raised twelve children and instilled in them the values that were so important in his own life. Though he achieved remarkable success during his short time in Congress, Mr. Renzi has also known failures. In this case, a jury of Mr. Renzi’s peers found that he was guilty of public corruption and of making false statements to insurance regulators. Mr. Renzi respects that verdict, appreciates the seriousness of these offenses, and stands ready to be sentenced by the Court. But as recognized by Probation, this case is unique in many ways that take it out of the heartland of corruption and fraud cases. Mr. Renzi was convicted even though: 1) what he tried to achieve, retiring the water use on the Sandlin Property, was unquestionably in the best interest of the public; and 2) Mr. Renzi received nothing more for his efforts to include the Sandlin Property in a land exchange than he would have received anyway. As a result, Probation concluded, and Mr. Renzi agrees, that this is the kind of case in which the Sentencing Guidelines do not accurately reflect Mr. Renzi’s culpability. Probation concluded that a term of imprisonment of 33 months was a sufficient departure from the Guidelines range that Probation found applied. But as Mr. Renzi has already established, a more accurate Guidelines calculation results in a range of 33-41 months imprisonment, so any departure from that range yields a sentence below that range. As explained in this memorandum, Mr. Renzi’s history and characteristics, including his good works and family ties, support a -4-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 5 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sentence well below the corrected Guidelines range. Mr. Renzi has already suffered from a long and public fall from grace, which has placed extreme stress on his family and his own health. Given his age and lack of a criminal history, Mr. Renzi poses no risk of recidivism. Accordingly, Mr. Renzi asks this Court to impose a sentence significantly below the corrected Guidelines sentencing range of 33-41 months’ imprisonment. BACKGROUND I. MR. RENZI’S UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION Mr. Renzi was born on June 11, 1958 in Monmouth, New Jersey. He is the oldest of five children of Gen. Eugene Renzi and Faye Renzi, née Barker. As a child, Mr. Renzi’s family moved frequently due to his father’s military career. Throughout his life, Mr. Renzi was strongly influenced by his father’s service to his country as an officer and later general in the United States Army, and by a strong commitment to the importance of family. From an early age, Mr. Renzi served as a father figure to his younger siblings while his father was serving a tour in the Vietnam War. Mr. Renzi’s mother was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis while he was still in high school, and during that time Mr. Renzi continued to support his siblings. Ralph Renzi, Mr. Renzi’s youngest sibling, writes that during all this time, “Rick balanced a life of school, sports, some part time work and the role of father. For many his role may have been temporary; for my brother Rick it never changed.” Ex. A-9, Letter from Ralph Renzi. Mr. Renzi went on to attend high school in Sierra Vista, AZ, and later college at Northern Arizona University (“NAU”), where he received a football scholarship. He was regarded by his peers as a loyal, caring friend and a strong leader. Roseanna Lindley, a friend of Mr. Renzi’s who has known him since the two attended high school and college together, writes, “He kept a helpful watch on a few of us (former classmates) to make sure that no one ever mistreated or was unkind to us. He was the ‘big brother’ type that living in a small town produces….” Ex. A-6, Letter from -5-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 6 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Roseanna Lindley. Father Rudy Rosales, who met Mr. Renzi as a student athletic trainer on the NAU football team, writes that “many people just considered us athletic trainers or just ‘water boys.’ But not Rick; he and others respected us and considered us valuable team members and brothers.” Ex. A-18, Letter from Fr. Rudy Rosales. Regardless of what else was taking place in Mr. Renzi’s life, he never lost sight of friends and family. Bob Orrill, a friend of Mr. Renzi’s since their days playing football together at NAU, recalls that when he suffered a heart attack in September 2002 (during the home stretch of Mr. Renzi’s campaign for election to Congress), “Rick was at the hospital with my family waiting to see me as I was brought back to my room after surgery.” Ex. A-20, Letter of Bob Orrill. Mr. Renzi married his wife, Roberta Renzi, née Stuart, in 1980 in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and together they had twelve children. Ron Renzi, Mr. Renzi’s oldest son, recalls a father who “would work as hard as he could all day, and still find the time to play catch with his sons until it was too dark to see the ball.” Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi. Mr. Renzi often worked two or even three jobs in order to provide for his family, so that his wife could remain home with their children. Ex. A7, Letter from Roberta Renzi; Ex. A-16, Letter from Tim Doser. Although the family endured some lean times financially, Mr. Renzi “created opportunity for himself through hard work and sheer determination,” and taught his children to always be mindful of all that they had to be thankful for. Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi. Even after he was elected to Congress, Mr. Renzi eschewed the social scene on the Hill, preferring instead to keep his evenings free to spend time with his family. Ex. A-12, Letter from Patty Roe. As a father, Mr. Renzi encouraged his children’s academic and athletic pursuits, and strove to instill in them his values of faith, family, and charity. Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi.

-6-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 7 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II.

MR. RENZI’S DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS Mr. Renzi’s life has been defined by his spirituality and religious devotion.

Roseanna Lindley writes of Mr. Renzi’s experience on a pilgrimage in Mexico, “where he walked on his knees for two miles to the cathedral to honor the Blessed Mother.” Ex. A-6, Letter from Roseanna Lindley. Mr. Renzi was also an ardent supporter of the rights of the unborn and worked passionately to advance that cause. A vital component of those efforts were the hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (“CPCs”) around the country that provided counseling services to pregnant women and offered alternatives to abortion. These centers typically had only very limited financial resources, and as the costs of insuring the risk of litigation arising from the centers’ activities mounted, many were unable to afford the cost of obtaining insurance coverage. Ex. A-11, Letter from Tom Glessner. It was at this time that Mr. Renzi, working in concert with the national organizations representing these centers, worked to develop an innovative group insurance program that would allow these centers to obtain coverage at a rate that they could afford. Mr. Renzi was asked by Tom Glessner, President of NIFLA (an organization representing many CPCs), to develop an insurance program at a fraction of the cost that the centers were paying on the market. Mr. Renzi met that challenge, obtaining coverage for centers at an annual premium of $1,000 or less where centers in the past had sometimes paid $40,000 or more. Id. Mr. Glessner writes that this coverage is “absolutely essential for the work of these centers to continue,” and that “This network would not be in existence today in such a dramatic way if it were not for the committed work of Rick Renzi.” Id. III. MR. RENZI’S SERVICE IN CONGRESS As a Member of Congress representing Arizona’s First Congressional District, Mr. Renzi came to the aid of his country, his district and his constituents in ways great and small. Mr. Renzi was a constant advocate for his constituents, especially those in -7-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 8 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the District’s poorest areas. Kathy Kitcheyan, a former Chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, describes Mr. Renzi as a “spokesman for improving the lives of our people.” Ex. A-5, Letter from Kathy Kitcheyan. Below is a summary of some of Mr. Renzi’s most important achievements during his time in Congress. A. Working to Resolve the Bennett Freeze

When Mr. Renzi was elected to Congress, thousands of Navajo were living in barely habitable housing as a result of the “Bennett Freeze” implemented in 1966 by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs during the course of a longstanding land dispute between the Hopi and Navajo Tribes. The Freeze halted all development on the affected land, and left the thousands of Navajo remaining on the land living in third-world conditions. See LOS ANGELES TIMES, “Trying To Be [sic] Rebuild After 40 Frozen Years,” Nov. 5, 2009, attached as Ex. D. Mr. Renzi took action to solve this problem that had persisted for forty years. Navajo Delegate Katherine Bennally writes: “It is a sad situation where inhumane conditions exist within the State of Arizona and the United States of America. What Rick did was travel with his committee members to the area to witness first-hand the substandard housing, no electricity, no running water and no waste water systems. Today, the Bennett Freeze has been lifted and the living conditions are slowly improving.” Ex. A-3, Letter from Katherine Bennally. As a result of Mr. Renzi’s efforts to raise awareness, legislation ending the freeze finally passed Congress. Peter MacDonald, former Chairman of the Navajo Tribe, notes that “Rick Renzi helped put an end to the so-called Bennett Freeze; thus, allowing more than 10,000 people living within the area to repair their old homes, build new homes and receive economic development assistance with water and power lines. Rick Renzi has a heart for people who are less fortunate.” Ex. A-14, Letter from Peter MacDonald. B. Improving Schools and Education

As Sarah Jones, one of Mr. Renzi’s former staffers writes, “education was in a particularly sad state in the First District.” Ex. A-19, Letter from Sarah Jones. Mr. -8-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 9 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Renzi made improving education a top priority during his tenure. Stacie Zanzucchi, Principal of Cococino High School, writes that Mr. Renzi “went so far as to organize a public forum regarding education in Northern Arizona and brought the U.S. Secretary of Education to speak to our community and answer questions regarding the Federal Government’s role in education in rural communities such as ours. He brought funding to schools to provide programs for low socio economic families. Many of these programs still exist and continue to thrive.” Ex. A-17, Letter from Stacie Zanzucchi. He was also a key proponent of the Navajo Nation Higher Education Act, which provided much needed funding for the modernization and repair of community college facilities on the Navajo Reservation. Ex. A-21, Letter from Wanda MacDonald. Mr. Renzi also obtained funds to replace a dilapidated school in the Dennehotso community, thereby providing a safe environment for children from kindergarten to eighth grade to attend school. Ex. A-10, Letter from Helen Bonnaha. C. Providing Affordable Housing Opportunities

When Mr. Renzi was elected to Congress, the First District faced staggering issues of poverty. Alix Norton, one of Mr. Renzi’s staff, writes of visiting families on the reservations living in “decrepit conditions, even an elderly lady with no home who slept in the middle of her sheep to stay warm.” Ex A-13, Letter from Alix Norton. Mr. Renzi made it a top priority to address inadequate housing on Native American land. Mr. Renzi hosted a Congressional field hearing in Tuba City, Arizona to address Native American housing issues, and sponsored and helped pass the Homeownership Opportunities for Native Americans Act of 2004, H.R. 4471, which helped provide financial flexibility to support creation of housing on Native American lands. Ex. A-8, Letter from Rosie Tsosie-Bingham; Ex. A-21, Letter from Wanda MacDonald; Ex A13, Letter from Alix Norton. D. Building and Improving Healthcare Facilities

Arizona’s First District is sprawling, largely rural, and in the past suffered from a dearth of adequate healthcare facilities. In many parts of the district, residents had to -9-

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 10 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

drive several hours to reach the nearest hospital or medical center. Mr. Renzi obtained much needed funding for the Kayenta Health Center, serving the Navajo Nation. Helen Bonnaha, a Former Kayenta Township Supervisor, writes that the community had been trying to obtain a hospital for more than 60 years. As a result of the funding obtained by Mr. Renzi, the center was able to expand from offering only limited services to providing important specialized services like x-rays, a pregnancy center, day surgery, and a wellness center. Ex. A-10, Letter from Helen Bonnaha. Mr. Renzi also obtained funding for a new hospital on the San Carlos Apache reservation, which would offer more specialized services and replace an existing facility that was over 50 year old, relieving residents who formerly had to travel two to three hours to see any health specialist. Ex. A-5, Letter from Kathy Kitcheyan. Mr. Renzi also helped the Morenci Healthcare Center gain Federal status, so that it could better serve poor residents in rural Arizona. Ex. A-18, Letter from Fr. Rudy Rosales. IV. HELPING OTHERS AND PERSONAL GENEROSITY Both personally and as a member of Congress, Mr. Renzi time and again has lent a hand to those in need. Ranging from small acts of kindness to offering sustained financial support and nurturing relationships, Mr. Renzi’s generosity has touched the lives of many. A. Sean Minton

Sean Minton, now twenty three years old, has known Mr. Renzi since he was introduced to him by Mr. Renzi’s sons at the age of six. Mr. Minton’s father tragically passed away when Sean was just four. Sean writes, “Unlike most kids in my position, I was still able to grow up with a strong father figure who helped guide me through life. That father was Mr. Renzi…. Mr. Renzi cared for me, and truly raised me like one of his own children.” At Mr. Renzi’s invitation, Sean attended church with the Renzi family every Sunday. The two developed a close relationship, like any father and son. Mr. Renzi helped instill in Sean a dedication to faith, academics and athletics that have become central to Mr. Minton’s life, and along with that guidance, provided - 10 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 11 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

him with food, housing, and financial support. As Mr. Minton writes, “When I was younger, the Renzis often fed me dinner, and there were times when Mr. Renzi took me into his home…. Whether I needed shoes for wrestling or money for lunch at school, I was always able to have it, thanks to Mr. Renzi.” Ex. A-1, Letter from Sean Minton. Mr. Renzi’s sympathy for Mr. Minton’s loss and determination to make a positive impact in his life is emblematic of the compassion and commitment to helping others that Mr. Renzi has shown throughout his life. B. Phil Cancik

Phil Cancik was a close friend of Mr. Renzi’s, dating back to their time as teammates on NAU’s football team. Mr. Cancik went on to a successful career in the NFL, but later fell into drug abuse and eventually wound up in prison on drug-related charges. When others had lost track of Mr. Cancik, Mr. Renzi took it on himself to hire a private investigator, and eventually learned of Mr. Cancik’s incarceration. Mr. Renzi visited Mr. Cancik in prison, and when he was released, Mr. Renzi gave him a job and helped him get back on his feet. When Mr. Cancik needed an advocate to speak on his behalf and help him obtain his contractor’s license, Mr. Renzi went to bat for him, and his testimony helped convince an appeals board to grant Mr. Cancik’s application. To this day, Mr. Cancik credits the friendship and support that Mr. Renzi offered as the reason he was able to turn his life around. Ex. A-2, Letter from Phil Cancik. C. Fundraiser for Fallen Capitol Police Officers

Mr. Renzi learned of two Capitol Police Officers, John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut, who had been killed in the line of duty while defending the United States Capitol against an armed intruder. See WASHINGTON POST, “Officers Lost Their Lives Saving Others,” July 25 1998, attached as Ex. E. Moved by their story, he took it upon himself to organize a charity touch football event between Members of Congress and the Capitol Police, to raise money for the two officers’ families. 152 CONG. REC. H1500 (Apr. 5, 2006) (statement of Rep. Shuster), attached as Ex. F; ROLL CALL, - 11 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 12 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“Members, Cops to recreate ‘The Longest Yard,’” Oct. 31, 2005, attached as Ex. G. In its first year, the event raised $50,000 for the education and other needs of the officers’ families, and has become an annual tradition. Ex. A-12, Letter from Patty Roe. D. Erika Hill

One of Mr. Renzi’s employees at Patriot Insurance, Erika Hill, was diagnosed with cancer. Ms. Hill writes that in addition to offering emotional support, Mr. Renzi provided her family with financial assistance, and refused her offers to repay him. Ex. A-15, Letter from Erika Hill. E. Support for a Deceased Friend’s Daughter

A former girlfriend of Mr. Renzi’s, and mutual friend of Roseanna Lindley, tragically passed away during an ocean diving incident, leaving behind a five year old daughter. When Mr. Renzi learned of this tragedy, he sought out his friend’s daughter and her guardian, to make sure that she would have money to attend college. As Ms. Lindley writes, Mr. Renzi did this “not wanting anything for himself, only to see the child of his friend be successful.” Ex. A-6, Letter from Roseanna Lindley. F. Care for Constituents in Need

Sarah Jones, a former staffer for Mr. Renzi, tells the story of some constituents who came to visit Mr. Renzi in his office in Washington, DC. The constituents had lost their wallet on their way to DC for a veterans event. Mr. Renzi “asked them how much they needed, and arranged for them to receive double that from his own pocket.” Ex. A-19, Letter from Sarah Jones. G. Donation of Property to the Catholic Church

Mr. Renzi has often given generously of his money and property. When the local Catholic Church was struggling to raise funds a new building, Mr. Renzi donated space in his own home to the church so that its members would have a place to worship. He later gave additional space, so that the church could open a thrift shop to raise funds for the new building. Ex. A-15, Letter from Erika Hill. - 12 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 13 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

V.

HEALTH ISSUES Dating back to 2000, Mr. Renzi has been suffering from various medical issues,

as detailed more fully in the Presentence Investigation Report. Presentence Investigation Report for Richard G. Renzi (“PSR”) ¶¶ 73-75. Mr. Renzi’s medical issues are further described in a letter submitted by his treating physician, Dr. William Dabney, attached to this Memorandum and filed under seal. See Ex. I, Letter from Dr. William Dabney (filed under seal). ARGUMENT I. THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE BUT ONE FACTOR AMONG MANY THAT THE COURT MUST CONSIDER. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 226-27 (2005), the Supreme Court freed sentencing courts from the rigid, formalistic framework that existed under the Guidelines, replacing it with a system in which judges have discretion to consider the relevant characteristics of the offense and the defendant. After Booker, sentencing courts are “obliged to ‘take account of’ [the Sentencing Guidelines] range along with the sentencing goals Congress enumerated in the [Sentencing Reform Act] at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 286 (2007) (quoting Booker, 543 U.S. at 259, 264). In other words, sentencing courts must consider the Guidelines, but they are not bound by them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Rather, they are but one of the statutory factors the courts must consider. See id. Here, Mr. Renzi agrees with the PSR Guidelines calculations in all but two ways, which relate to enhancements the PSR made 1) pursuant to USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) based on the value involved in the public corruption counts; and 2) pursuant to USSG §2B1.1 based on the amount of the loss on the insurance counts.

- 13 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 14 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A.

There is No Basis For Any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 1 Offenses Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

Again, as Probation recognized, one of the things that makes this case so unique is the fact that Mr. Renzi was not going to profit from the insertion of the Sandlin property into any land exchange bill. Even the government accepts that Mr. Renzi received nothing beyond the repayment of the pre-existing debt that Mr. Sandlin owed to Mr. Renzi related to the Kingman property. And it is also true that Mr. Sandlin did not need to sell the Sandlin property to repay this debt. Mr. Sandlin borrowed over $900,000 from Mr. Ricketts in the fall of 2005, using only ¼ of the Kingman property as collateral, which was more than what Mr. Sandlin needed to repay Mr. Renzi. Further, Mr. Sandlin had additional properties that he could have sold or borrowed against if necessary. Thus, there is simply no evidence to suggest that Mr. Sandlin needed to sell the Sandlin property, or that Mr. Renzi somehow thought this was so, to repay this debt. The natural consequence of those facts is that the Guidelines do not impose any enhanced penalty upon Mr. Renzi under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2), which provides for increases in a defendant’s offense level based on the value involved in the offense. The government argues to the contrary, but those efforts to dramatically increase Mr. Renzi’s punishment are speculative and impermissible, and should be rejected. 1. Legal Standards

As the Government concedes, the government has the burden of establishing any of its proposed enhancements under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) by clear and convincing evidence because of the disproportionate impact this section has on Mr. Renzi’s sentence. Government Consolidated Response to the Objections (Dkt. 1305), at 3 (citing United States v. Jordan, 256 F.3d 922, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2001). That high standard is particularly appropriate here. The purpose of value-based enhancements is to increase punishment only in circumstances where additional punishment is warranted – that is, where the Government has proven a loss to the victim or gain to - 14 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 15 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the defendant. This principle was explained in United States v. Schneider, 930 F.2d 555, 559 (7th Cir. 1991), which explained that the Guidelines essentially start for purposes of fraud loss calculations with the assumption that the victim lost nothing, but then enhance a sentence (or awards “bonus punishment points”) based on proven losses: We add that of course the Schneiders will not go scot free merely because the government failed--failed utterly--to prove any loss to the victim of their fraud. The statutes under which they were convicted do not require a minimum loss to the victim… It is simply that the Guidelines award bonus punishment points for different levels of proven loss beginning with $2,000. The government did not earn a bonus in this case. Id. at 559 (emphasis added). Further underscoring the protections provided by the Guidelines, the government is not permitted to meet its burden of proving value under §2C1.1 based on speculation. See United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793, 812 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Rousell, 705 F.3d 184, 201 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ring, 811 F.2d 359, 380 (D.D.C. 2011). 2. The Government Cannot Quantify Any Loss to the Aries Group Under the Second Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

The second prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) considers the value of the “benefit received or to be received in return for the payment.” The government argues that the Court should adopt a $4.6 million figure, reflecting the amount that the Aries Group paid for the Sandlin property. This is a guess. The government has no idea, nor does anyone else, whether or how much the Aries Group might have profited if the Aries Bill had passed out of Mr. Renzi’s committee. It is far from clear that the Aries Group would have turned any profit at all, let alone the 100% rate of return the government seeks. It matters not whether this analysis is done now or back in 2005 -- there are simply too many unknown variables (e.g., would the Aries Bill actually pass, would the Aries Group be able to develop the property profitably in light of the real estate market, etc.). - 15 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 16 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The government’s argument rests on the assumption that the Aries Group would make millions of dollars because it was investing millions of dollars. This is obviously flawed – the size of the investment has no bearing as to whether it actually makes money. The government’s naked assertion that $4.6 million is a “conservative estimate” is simply another way of saying that it cannot quantify what rate of profit, let alone the ultimate profit, the Aries Group might have enjoyed. That inability to quantify any number dooms their argument. 3. The Government Cannot Show that Either Mr. Renzi or Mr. Sandlin Gained Anything of Value Under the Third Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

The third measure under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) considers “the value of anything obtained or to be obtained by a public official or others acting with a public official.” As the Government concedes, Dkt. No. 1301 at 5, Ninth Circuit precedent dictates that any valuation under this measure must be a “net” valuation.” See United States v. White Eagle, 721 F.3d 1108, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013). This is a critical (albeit undeniable) concession, because neither Mr. Sandlin nor Mr. Renzi received anything more than what they gave up or were owed. Accordingly, neither man received anything of value. With respect to Mr. Sandlin, the unrebutted evidence at trial (which the government does not contest) was that the Aries Group paid Mr. Sandlin less than the fair market value of what the Sandlin Property was worth. See Dkt. No. 1303 at 4-6 (detailing the $5.2 million offer the Aries Group received for the Sandlin Property within weeks of the May 2005 agreement to buy the land from Mr. Sandlin). White Eagle and similar cases demonstrate that the proper way to determine the net valuation of property is to assess the fair market value of the property at the time it is sold, not some other time. See White Eagle, 721 F.3d at 1122; United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610, 620, 646-47 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Ring, 811 F. Supp. 2d 359, 380 (D.D.C. 2011); United States v. Barranza, 655 F.3d 375, 385-86 (5th Cir. 2011). In the context of commercial fraud, it is clear that defendants receive credit for “the fair - 16 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 17 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

market value of the property returned” -- there is no reason to believe a different principle operates here. See USSG §2B1.1, Comment 3(E). As for the valuation of any benefit to Mr. Renzi, as previously explained, see Dkt. No. 1300 at 3-5, the only payments that Mr. Renzi received were in repayment of a pre-existing debt owed him by Mr. Sandlin. Because Mr. Renzi would have received both of those payments regardless of Mr. Sandlin’s sale of his property to the Aries Group, Mr. Renzi did not receive anything of net value as a result of that transaction. The key facts surrounding the original debt were proven at trial. Mr. Sandlin’s debt to Mr. Renzi originated in 2003, when Mr. Sandlin completed his buyout of Mr. Renzi’s interest in the Kingman property. Mr. Sandlin did not pay the entire purchase price at the time of that sale, and the evidence established that this was essentially a handshake deal in which Mr. Sandlin owed Mr. Renzi $800,000. Mr. Sandlin made several payments on his debt in 2004 as anticipated. In the summer of 2005, however, Mr. Sandlin entered into a promise to sell a portion of the Kingman Property to Mike Anderson, another developer. Mr. Sandlin’s agreement triggered his obligation to pay the outstanding balance of his debt in full, which was explained in the letter that Mr. Renzi arranged to be sent to Mr. Sandlin on August 29, 2005 to call the note. Gov’t Ex. 655. After Mr. Renzi called the note, Mr. Sandlin paid the remaining balance with money that Mr. Sandlin borrowed from Mr. Ricketts in September 2005. Mr. Sandlin received additional funds from the Aries Group in October 2005, which he kept in an escrow account so that he could purchase the Sandlin Property back should it become available. The government does not contest that Mr. Sandlin owed Mr. Renzi $733,000 from the Kingman transaction, but argues that the money was still somehow tied to the extortionate conduct. But this is immaterial for purposes of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) – even if the money were tied to the crime, which it was not, Mr. Renzi did not gain any extra benefit from being repaid money that he was already owed.

- 17 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 18 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The government has no evidence that Mr. Sandlin was unable to repay Mr. Renzi, let alone enough to meet the clear and convincing standard here. Mr. Sandlin had assets worth many millions of dollars in 2005. He used a small portion of those assets (1/4 of his interest in the Kingman Property) to borrow $966,000 from Mr. Ricketts. He owned a series of additional properties free and clear of any mortgage. There is simply no evidence that Mr. Sandlin was unable to pay his debt, or that Mr. Renzi mistakenly believed that he would. The government fares no better on its claim that Mr. Renzi got his money from Mr. Sandlin sooner than it was otherwise due. Dkt. No. 1305 at 10. The government’s arguments in this regard rely on a series of fundamentally flawed assumptions. As an initial matter, the government cannot substantiate its basic premise, namely that Mr. Renzi received money early. The evidence at trial showed that the entire note became due after Mr. Sandlin entered into his agreement to sell part of the Kingman development to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Renzi’s letter to Mr. Sandlin states this directly, and it makes sense that Mr. Renzi would have required Mr. Sandlin to pay the debt once Mr. Sandlin started selling portions of the Kingman development (which effectively functioned as the collateral on the deal). Further, the timing of Mr. Renzi’s demand letter, which closely follows the agreement between Mr. Sandlin and Mr. Anderson, lends further credence to its authenticity. The government insists that the demand letter is fraudulent, but does not have the requisite clear and convincing evidence to support this claim. The government’s argument rests on the notion that the draft promissory note that Ray Hanna prepared in May 2004 did not include any such trigger language. But that argument ignores the circumstances under which that note was made. The note was arranged by a lawyer, Mr. Hanna, who did not understand the background of the deal or its terms, prepared off of a standard form, and done without Mr. Renzi’s input. Critically, Mr. Renzi’s own handwritten notes on the draft, which were made in 2004, well before any of the events at issue here, prove that the note was incomplete and did not include terms - 18 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 19 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

about the security that Mr. Sandlin had promised. See Renzi Ex. 2742, attached as Ex. H. Thus, the draft promissory note does not have all the terms of the agreement between Mr. Renzi and Mr. Sandlin, and the government cannot credibly assert that the absence of any particular term in the draft note is determinative. Further, the government’s analysis is also clouded by a series of fundamental flaws. First, the government incorrectly assumes that the note did not become due in August 2005, and thus includes damages for periods that extend into 2007, which dramatically increases their figures.1 Second, the government falsely inflates its analysis by assuming that Mr. Renzi would not earn 5% interest on the funds that Mr. Sandlin owed him if the loan were not repaid, even though this was the rate called for in the note and the rate of interest that Mr. Sandlin actually paid. Any advantage to Mr. Renzi for receiving his money back early has to account for the fact that he would earn 5% by doing nothing. Finally, the government inflates its analysis by picking rates that have no logical relationship to what Mr. Renzi might actually have done with the money. For example, there is no reason to think that the rate of interest that Mr. Sandlin was willing to pay to Mr. Ricketts was somehow indicative of Mr. Renzi’s view of the time value of money. Thus, the government simply cannot support the notion that Mr. Renzi somehow benefitted additionally from the fact that Mr. Sandlin repaid his loan in 2005. B. There is No Basis For Any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 2 Offenses (Insurance) Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under §2B1.1.

The PSR suggests that the Court apply a 14-level enhancement under §2B1.1 on the basis of an erroneous conclusion that Mr. Renzi unlawfully used between $400,000 and $1 million to fund his political campaign. PSR ¶ 47. As explained in Mr. Renzi’s previous filing, Dkt. No. 1300 at 6-7, the jury rejected the government’s Removing the unwarranted time from the government’s calculations reduces the loss from $104,768.50 to $6,419.75 in Exhibit A, and from $85,030.55 to $4,324.82 in Exhibit B. - 19 1

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 20 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

claim that Mr. Renzi used corporate money to fund his campaign, acquitting Mr. Renzi of Racketeering Act 1A, the only allegation that that actually relates to the source of funds for the campaign contributions.2 This conclusion followed the evidence at trial, through both Robert Watkins and the government’s own witnesses, that Mr. Renzi used personal money to fund his campaign. Further, even if the government could show that some money was misappropriated, it has not established that all $422,000 that Mr. Renzi withdrew came from misappropriated funds. This is impossible given the funds that Mr. Renzi unquestionably put into Renzi & Company. Thus, the government cannot sustain its burden of showing that Mr. Renzi obtained over $400,000 in illicit gain here. Similarly, there is no loss here. The undisputed evidence shows that none of Renzi & Company’s clients was ever denied payment for a proper claim as a result of the dispute between NIF and Renzi & Company, and that NIF was paid all monies due to it in November 2002—just days after NIF and Renzi & Company resolved their coverage dispute. Thus, there was neither any gain or loss associated with this offense, and accordingly no basis for a level enhancement under §2B1.1. II. MR. RENZI’S HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF HIS OFFENSE WARRANT A NON-GUIDELINES SENTENCE After evaluating the Sentencing Guidelines and calculating a potentially applicable Guidelines range, the Court must consider the remaining § 3553(a) factors to “‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,’” to comply with the purposes set forth by Congress. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 89 (2007) (quoting § 3553(a)). Sentencing courts now have an obligation to consider factors that were discouraged under the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines regime, such as history

The government argues that the jury’s findings that Mr. Renzi committed other racketeering predicate acts suggests that Mr. Renzi misappropriated insurance premiums, but each of the predicate acts cited in the Government’s brief, Dkt. No. 1305, at 12, pertains to the false statements to regulators. - 20 -

2

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 21 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and characteristics of a defendant, the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence, the likelihood of recidivism, and the public’s need for protection, because they are relevant in determining the “history and characteristics of the defendant” under § 3553(a)(1). E.g., id. at 93. In this case, Mr. Renzi’s history and characteristics as well as the nature of his offense strongly favor a lenient non-Guidelines sentence. A. Mr. Renzi’s Personal History and Characteristics Suggest a BelowGuidelines Sentence

Throughout his life, Mr. Renzi has been defined by his commitments to faith, family, charity, and public service. With limited financial resources and a large and ever-growing family, Mr. Renzi worked hard to provide for those he loved. After he achieved financial success, Mr. Renzi dedicated his life to public service and to advancing the pro-life movement he was so passionate about. Mr. Renzi’s active role in his community, his commitment to improving the lives of others, public service and family ties provide strong support for a below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 571 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (affirming probationary sentence where sentencing court properly considered the defendant’s negligible criminal history, employment record, community ties, and charitable works.) 1. Mr. Renzi’s Good Works and Public Service

Mr. Renzi’s commitment to helping others is an important factor that favors a lenient, below-Guidelines sentence: [S]urely, if ever a man is to receive credit for the good he has done, and his immediate misconduct assessed in the context of his overall life hitherto, it should be at the moment of his sentencing, when his very future hangs in the balance. This elementary principle of weighing the good with the bad, which is basic to all the great religions, moral philosophies, and systems of justice, was plainly part of what Congress had in mind when it directed courts to consider, as a necessary sentencing factor, “the history and characteristics of the defendant.” United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506, 513-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). As set out above, Mr. Renzi has made a tremendous difference for good in the lives of others. As a Member of Congress, Mr. Renzi worked to expand education, - 21 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 22 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

housing, and healthcare in communities that were sorely lacking these basic human rights. Thanks to Mr. Renzi’s efforts, constituents who had previously felt ignored by their government finally felt that they had a champion for their interests. Prior to his election, as an activist in the pro-life movement, Mr. Renzi used his expertise in the insurance industry to create an innovative insurance program that Mr. Glessner, President of NIFLA, described as essential to the continued operation of the crisis pregnancy centers on their present scale. There remains much good work for Mr. Renzi to do. Many of those who wrote letters3 on Mr. Renzi’s behalf stress the important work he has done in their communities and that he can continue to help. We urge the Court to exercise its discretion under Booker to extend leniency to Mr. Renzi, in light of his history of good works and ability to continue to make a positive impact in the lives of others. 2. Mr. Renzi’s Family Ties

One of the most common factors relied upon by sentencing courts as warranting a below-Guidelines sentence is the strength of a defendant’s family ties. See United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (affirming sentence of probation, 1,000 hours of community service, and restitution in lieu of 4151 months in prison in part because the defendant’s eight-year-old daughter depended on him); United States v. Nellum, No. 2:04-CR-30-PS, 2005 WL 300073, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2005) (sentencing defendant to a lower non-Guidelines sentence in part due to his good relationship with his children). Mr. Renzi’s family ties are deep and strong. Mr. Renzi’s several siblings have all written letters describing their relationships with him, and the role he played as father figure to them when they were younger and dealing with their mother’s tragic and terminal illness. Mr. Renzi’s wife and oldest son have also written letters, and the latter was joined by Mr. Renzi’s other eleven children, all of whom would suffer In addition to those letters cited herein (attached at Exhibit A), other letters submitted on Mr. Renzi’s behalf are attached at Exhibit B. - 22 3

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 23 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

greatly if Mr. Renzi were sentenced to prison for an extended period. In addition, several of Mr. Renzi’s children are still living at home, and Mr. Renzi’s assistance with the family business is important to their financial support. As noted in Ron Renzi’s letter, Mr. Renzi also has grandchildren, who risk not having a relationship with their grandfather if he is given a lengthy prison sentence. B. The Nature and Seriousness of Mr. Renzi’s Offenses

Mr. Renzi recognizes that he stands convicted of felonies relating to his involvement in land exchange legislation and of making false statements to insurance regulators. These are serious offenses, but Mr. Renzi’s conduct differs in important ways from the typical public corruption and fraud offenses. Those differences should be recognized in the sentence that is imposed on Mr. Renzi. 1. The Public Corruption Offenses

As the Probation Officer observed, “the ‘heartland’ public corruption case typically involves an obvious kickback, bribe payment or other illegal gain of some sort. However, that does not appear to have happened in this matter.” PSR ¶ 108. Here, Mr. Renzi stands convicted even though: 1) the inclusion of the Sandlin Property in either the Aries or the Resolution Copper bill would have been in the public interest; and 2) Mr. Renzi was not going to benefit from the inclusion of the Sandlin Property beyond the repayment of a pre-existing debt. In essence, Mr. Renzi’s acts were the equivalent of a failure to disclose a conflict of interest. The evidence at trial overwhelmingly established that the inclusion of the Sandlin property in the land exchange was in the public interest because retiring the water usage on the property would be so helpful for the environment, the military, and the Sierra Vista community. The government’s stipulation laid out the key facts: 1) Fort Huachuca’s mission was “essential to the national security of the United States,” and 2) “retiring the water usage on the Sandlin property was thus in the public interest and of value to Fort Huachuca.” Dkt. No. 1214.

- 23 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 24 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

But the evidence was not limited to the stipulation. The record is replete with testimony regarding the value of the Sandlin Property to helping the water problems that plagued Fort Huachuca and Sierra Vista. For example, Holly Richter from The Nature Conservancy (“TNC”), testified about the Sandlin Property’s dramatic impact on water usage in the area, and she and other TNC witnesses testified about that group’s longstanding efforts to retire the water usage on the property. Indeed, TNC documents showed that the group was interested in working with Mr. Renzi with respect to the Sandlin property well before the emergence of the Resolution Copper and Aries land exchanges. Matt Walsh and Col. Jonathan Hunter testified about the importance of the Fort’s operations and the serious threat posed by conservation issues to the continuing viability of its operations in the face of the BRAC. Similarly, Pat Call and Col. Thomas Finnegan testified about the importance of the Fort to Sierra Vista and the community’s concern about the water use on the Sandlin Property. The evidence of the significance of the Sandlin Property was matched by the evidence that showed Mr. Renzi’s sincere desire to help Fort Huachuca and the Sierra Vista community. Every former Renzi staffer and citizen who testified about Mr. Renzi’s involvement with Fort Huachuca (e.g., Karen Lynch, Kevin Messner, Matt Walsh, Col. Hunter, Pat Call, Col. Finnegan and even Joanne Keene) testified of Mr. Renzi’s longstanding efforts to understand the Fort’s mission and to help protect it, efforts that dated back to well before the land exchange legislation was ever contemplated. The government did not challenge the sincerity of this testimony, nor could it. Mr. Renzi’s motivations, of course, are a key component of the charges against him. Again, Mr. Renzi recognizes the jury verdict, but the limitations on that verdict must be recognized as well. The law prohibits a mixed motive defense, and the Court ensured that the jury was instructed accordingly. As a result, all that can be taken from the jury’s verdict is that the jury concluded that at least some part of Mr. Renzi’s intent was improper. But there can be little question here that Mr. Renzi was also driven by - 24 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 25 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a pure belief in the wisdom of including the Sandlin Property in any land exchange deal, and that his actions to try to make that happen were good public policy. Thus, this Court should recognize, as Probation did, that Mr. Renzi’s conduct falls far outside the heartland of public corruption cases, and that he should be treated accordingly. 2. The Insurance Offenses

The insurance offenses revolve around the representations that Renzi & Company made to regulators investigating a dispute between Renzi & Company and Safeco Insurance Company. This dispute was real. Safeco refused claims based on the crisis pregnancy centers’ provision of spiritual counseling—a crucial aspect of the centers’ insurance coverage. But ultimately, the dispute was resolved, and Safeco (and NIF) received their money, the pregnancy centers received retroactive coverage, and every single claim made was paid. In short, there was no loss here. In light of the significant penalties facing Mr. Renzi from the public corruption cases, the absence of harm on the insurance counts is significant. Further, the weight the Court puts on these counts should be balanced by the significant efforts Mr. Renzi made on behalf of his clients. As relayed by Mr. Glessner, it was due to Mr. Renzi’s efforts that the pregnancy centers were able to receive appropriate insurance at all. For example, Mr. Renzi did ultimately force Safeco to change its policies to cover spiritual counseling. Even more significantly, Mr. Renzi also developed Spirit Mountain, which allowed the pregnancy centers to essentially insure themselves from the threat that Safeco (or any other insurer) would decide that it was politically expedient to cancel or restrict coverage. As was demonstrated at trial, Mr. Renzi put at risk much of his own personal fortune to build Spirit Mountain (e.g., by pledging his house and hundreds of thousands of his own money in support of the business), but allowed the members of the organization to reap much of the reward of his hard work (e.g., by passing back dividends to the members of the RRG rather than seeking to collect the money as profits). - 25 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 26 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C.

Mr. Renzi’s Conviction, the Proposed Sentence, and His Public Downfall Would Promote Respect for the Law and Effectively Deter Others

Sentencing courts must consider general deterrence. However, a lengthy term of incarceration is not the only way to deter others. Courts recognize that the collateral consequences of convictions, such as reputational losses and litigation, can accomplish that result. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 533 F.3d 623, 633 (8th Cir. 2008)

(concluding that reputational losses and collateral litigation against a defendant sufficed to deter others); United States v. Edwards, 595 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court appropriately concluded that probation and restitution provided an adequate measure of general deterrence even though Guidelines suggested 27-33 months imprisonment). Here, Mr. Renzi’s public downfall and his exit from Congress also serve as powerful deterrents. From the moment of his indictment, Mr. Renzi’s career in Congress was effectively marginalized, and he left office at the start of the 2009 term. Since that time, he has not only been out of public office, but as his family recounts, Mr. Renzi has lived in isolation, removed from the community in which he was once so engaged. Ex. A-7, Letter from Roberta Renzi; Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi. Living these past seven years in isolation with his life on hold while waiting for the process to conclude has itself been a punishment that provides an additional measure of deterrence. In addition, the toll on Mr. Renzi’s family has been devastating, and would deter anyone from engaging in criminal conduct. Ron Renzi, Mr. Renzi’s oldest son, writes: for my younger siblings, some of them as young as 7 years old when this [the proceedings against Mr. Renzi] first happened, it has been particularly difficult. They were too young to understand why it suddenly seemed like everyone hated their daddy. They didn’t understand why it seemed like the community had turned against us. They experience constant ridicule and bullying at school. I remember on several occasions while coaching my younger brothers, people actually booed them at athletic events for no reason at all…. I watched over again as parents and coaches would try to ban my dad from coming - 26 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 27 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to events to cheer on his own kids…. I saw my 12 year old sister come home crying because a teacher singled her out in class and called her daddy a ‘criminal’ in front of fellow classmates. Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi. Mr. Renzi’s experience watching the effect of his conduct on his family is perhaps the most painful punishment that he could incur. D. A Lengthy Prison Sentence Is Not Needed to Protect the Public Because There is No Risk of Recidivism

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), sentencing courts must also consider the need to “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” Here, Mr. Renzi’s chance of recidivism is zero, and thus a lengthy sentence of imprisonment is not needed to protect the public. Mr. Renzi’s age at the time of sentencing, lack of a criminal history, and post-offense conduct all support a below-Guidelines sentence. Mr. Renzi will be 55 years old at the time of his sentencing. A belowGuidelines sentence is appropriate in the case of older offenders because the Sentencing Guidelines do not take into account the fact that defendants over the age of forty “exhibit markedly lower rates of recidivism in comparison to younger defendants.” United States v. Carmona-Rodriguez, No. 04-cr-667(RWS), 2005 WL 840464, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2005); see also Simon v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 2d 35, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (sentencing 43-year old defendant to lower non-Guidelines sentence because of the Guidelines failure to account for decreased recidivism rates among older defendants). After he was indicted, Mr. Renzi did not seek re-election to Congress. Since that time, he has spent time with his family, and has helped his wife Roberta to manage the family business, providing guidance and consultation regarding insurance matters. Ex. A-7, Letter from Roberta Renzi. This factor also supports a belowGuidelines sentence. See United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming probationary sentence based in part on defendant’s post-offense conduct, including working to build a business and living honorably). - 27 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 28 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

E.

A Below-Guidelines Sentence Would Help to Avoid Disparities With Sentences Given to Defendants for Similar Offenses

The Sentencing Reform Act directs courts to consider the need to “avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We have reviewed the sentences of federal congressmen sentenced on bribery or embezzlement charges in recent years, and provide a sampling of the most significant cases below. That review demonstrates that Mr. Renzi’s conduct is readily distinguishable from other Members of Congress who have been sentenced for public corruption offenses because 1) his actions were in furtherance of the public good; and 2) he was not going to obtain any financial advantage for what he sought. In contrast, the cases below dealt with situations where the Members’ conduct was aimed wholly at personal enrichment, and none of the legislators were motivated by the public interest. Mr. Renzi’s conduct stands in contrast to these heartland public corruption cases, and his sentence should reflect that difference:  Congressman Bob Ney received over $170,000 worth of bribes plus numerous other benefits worth undisclosed sums, during a course of conduct that spanned from 2000-2003 in connection with the Abramoff scandal. Congressman Ney’s benefits included all-expenses-paid vacations, tickets to luxury suites at sporting events, campaign contributions and gambling stipends. In return, Ney performed numerous official actions to benefit Abramoff’s clients, including supporting or opposing numerous pieces of legislation at Abramoff’s and his associate’s request, inserting language into the Congressional Record, inserting amendments into legislation, supporting a license application for one of Abramoff’s clients to obtain a multi-million dollar contract, and contacting members of the Executive branch in an effort to influence their decisions at the request of Abramoff. He received a sentence of 30 months. See Factual Proffer, Plea Agreement, United States v. Ney, No. 1:06-cr-00272-ESH (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2006), attached as Ex. C-1; Judgment, United States v. Ney, No. 1:06cr-00272-ESH (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2007), attached as Ex. C-2.  Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, who stole more than $640,000 from the Government in a series of schemes involving kickbacks from fake employees and embezzlement of House post office funds, received a sentenced of seventeen months. See LOS ANGELES TIMES, “Rostenkowski Pleads Guilty, Gets Prison,” April 10, 1996, attached as Ex. C-3.  Congressman Joseph Kolter, who embezzled more than $44,000 from the U.S. Government during the House post office scandal, received a sentence of 6 months. See N.Y. TIMES, “Ex-Congressman Gets 6 Months in Prison,” Aug. 1, 1996, attached as Ex. C-4; N.Y. TIMES, “Ex-Lawmaker Indicted in Post Office Scandal,” Oct. 19, 1994, attached as Ex. C-5. - 28 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 29 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The defendants whose conduct was closest (although still worse) to Mr. Renzi’s received sentences at or below the recommendation made by the Probation Officer here. And importantly, defendants who have received significantly higher sentences were engaged in far more egregious conduct than Mr. Renzi.4 As a result, this review supports the notion that Mr. Renzi’s sentence should be lower than what was proposed by the Probation Officer. CONCLUSION Mr. Renzi’s outstanding record of good works, his public service, and close family ties all argue for leniency. His age, lack of criminal history, and departure from public office effectively foreclose any chance of recidivism. His fall from grace and the devastating impact of his conduct on both himself and his family have cost him and his family dearly, and already served to punish him severely while deterring others. The 33-month term of imprisonment proposed by the Probation Officer significantly overstates the just punishment for Mr. Renzi’s crimes. As a result, Mr. Renzi will ask that the Court impose a sentence with a term of imprisonment significantly below that recommendation. Such a sentence would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to serve the purposes of sentencing.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Congressman William Jefferson received $478,000 in actual bribes in return for his use of his office to attempt to corruptly broker various business ventures in several African nations, but plotted a scheme that he expected would earn him shares in a Nigerian telecommunications joint venture worth $172 million. See Gov’t Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Jefferson, No. 1:07-cr-00209-TSE, at 3-4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2009), attached as Ex. C-6. Mr. Jefferson used his position to exert influence on dozens of U.S. and foreign government officials, including a conspiracy to bribe Nigeria’s sitting Vice President. Id. at 5-7. Mr. Jefferson was sentenced to 156 months in prison, but even this sentence was dramatically less than the Guidelines range of 262-327 months. See Judgment, United States v. Jefferson, No. 1:07-cr00209-TSE, at 3-4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2009), attached as Ex. C-7. - 29 4

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 30 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ Christopher S. Niewoehner Christopher Niewoehner (Pro Hac Vice) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-3000 and Kelly B. Kramer (Pro Hac Vice) Joseph P. Minta (Pro Hac Vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Attorneys for Defendant Richard G. Renzi

- 30 -

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 31 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 22, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Christopher S. Niewoehner