Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- v. -

STEVEN JORDAN,
a/k/a Stevie Jordan,
a/k/a Stevie J,
Defendant.

S1 15 Cr. 12 (PAC)

:
:
:

------------------------------------x

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States of America

Katherine Reilly
Assistant United States Attorney
- Of Counsel -

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- v. -

STEVEN JORDAN,
a/k/a Stevie Jordan,
a/k/a Stevie J,

S1 15 Cr. 12 (PAC)

:
:

Defendant.

------------------------------------x

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The defendant is scheduled to be sentenced in this matter on February 1, 2017 at
3:30 p.m. The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in advance of that
sentencing. As set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) do not apply to the defendants offense. Therefore, the
sentencing range applicable to this defendant is that permitted by the statute under which the
defendant was convicted, Title 18, United States Code, Section 228(a)(1): zero to six months
imprisonment (the Statutory Range). For the reasons set forth below, the Government submits
that the Court should impose a sentence of incarceration within the Statutory Range.
I. BACKGROUND
A.

Offense Conduct
The defendant and another individual (Witness-1) are the parents of two

children: a male child, born in March 1997 (Child-1), and a female child, born in November
1998 (Child-2). (PSR 6). The defendant has signed Acknowledgements of Paternity, filed
with the New York County Family Court, as to both Child-1 and Child-2. (Id. 7). On July 10,

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 8

1999, subsequent to the signing of the Acknowledgements of Paternity, an order was entered in
New York County Family Court directing the defendant to make child support obligation
payments for both Child-1 and Child-2 in the amount of $6,608 per month. (Id.). On October
22, 2011, an order was entered in New York County Family Court adjusting the defendants
child support obligation as to Child-1 and Child-2 to $8,557 per month. (Id.).
The defendant has, over the course of several years, failed to make payments in
satisfaction of his child support obligations as to Child-1 and Child-2, despite having the ability
to do so. (Id. 8). At the time of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, in June 2014, the
defendant owed approximately $1,107, 412 in child support as to Child-1 and Child-2. (Id.)
While the defendants wages have been garnished and some of his accounts automatically
debited in an attempt to collect this outstanding child support obligation, the last voluntary
payment made by the defendant through the New York City Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE) before the defendants arrest was in 2001. 1 (Id.). Meanwhile, the
defendant had, in the period between 2003 and 2013, received at least $100,000 in royalties. (Id.
13). Additionally, he had, since October 2012, been employed as a cast member of a reality
television show, earning approximately $27,000 per month. (Id. 9).
As set forth in the PSR, the amount owed by the defendant increases the longer it
remains unpaid. (Id. 14). According to OCSE, as of January 2017, the defendant owes
$1,304,835.86 in child support obligations as to Child-1 and Child-2.

11

The defendant has, on occasion during the period at issue in the Superseding Information,
made some payments directly to Witness-1 and has provided cash and other gifts to Child-1 and
Child-2 directly. See (PSR 35). Because these payments are not made through OCSE as
proscribed by the applicable court orders, and are not, as a result, accounted for in any way by
the state, they do not reduce the defendants total child support obligations.
2

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 8

B.

Procedural History

On June 2, 2014, the Honorable Frank Maas signed a complaint charging the
defendant with failure to pay child support obligations between at least in or about March 2001
through at least in or about June 2014, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
228(a)(3) and (c)(2). The defendant was arrested on June 10, 2014. 2 On January 9, 2015, a onecount Indictment was returned in the instant case, again charging the defendant with violating
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 228(a)(3) and (c)(2). On October 17, 2016, the defendant
pleaded guilty before this Court, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a one-count Superseding
Information charging him with misdemeanor failure to pay child support obligations between at
least in or about March 2001 and at least in or about June 2014, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 228(a)(3) and (c)(1).
C.

The Probation Office Recommendation

As set forth in the PSR, the Probation Office recommends a sentence of three
years probation, a fine of $2,500, and the payment of restitution in the amount of the child
support obligation due. 3 (PSR at 18).

The defendant was released on bail at the time of his arrest. Since his release on bail, the
defendant has repeatedly failed to report for drug testing and, when he has reported, has tested
positive on multiple occasions for illegal substances. As set forth in the most recent
memorandum provided to the Court by Pretrial Services on October 14, 2016, the defendant
failed to report for drug testing on eight separate occasions in 2016 and tested positive for
cocaine on two occasions. (Mem. From Pretrial Services Officer Trail, Oct. 14, 2016). Indeed,
the defendant has been ordered into drug treatment programs in connection with his release on
bail in this case on three separate occasions, most recently by Magistrate Judge Freeman in
September 2016. (Dkt. No. 56).
3

The amount of the child support obligation set forth in the PSR, $1,297,360.72, was the
amount owed as of September 29, 2016. (PSR 14). As set forth above, the amount currently
owed is $1,304,835.86.
3

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 8

II. DISCUSSION
In light of the nature and circumstances of the instant offense, a sentence of
imprisonment within the Statutory Range, including the imposition of a restitution obligation
reflecting the full amount owed by the defendant in child support obligations as to Child-1 and
Child-2, is appropriate in this case. 4 The 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors applicable here include the
need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the
law, and to afford adequate deterrence to this defendant and other similarly situated individuals.
18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). These considerations weigh in favor of a sentence of
imprisonment within the Statutory Range.
A.

A Sentence Including a Period of Incarceration is Appropriate.

A custodial sentence within the Statutory Range is appropriate in this case, first

and foremost, in order to reflect the seriousness of the offense. The defendants failure to
provide the requisite support for his children was flagrant; for more than a decade, including
during periods in which he was earning a substantial income, the defendant failed to make any
voluntary payments through the mandated channels in furtherance of his child support
obligations. While one could imagine a parent unable to satisfy a child support obligation
because of financial limitations, the defendant here had the means to make payments. The PSR
notes not only that he earned substantial amounts in salary and royalties during periods in which
he made no payments, see (PSR 9-13), but also that beginning in approximately 2012, he was
a cast member of a successful reality show, earning him additional financial and career
opportunities, see (PSR 37, 56). Even taking into account what payments the defendant made
directly to Witness-1, Child-1 and/or Child-2which, of course, he made not as directed by the
4

A Proposed Restitution Order is included along with this submission for the Courts
consideration.
4

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 6 of 8

court but on his own timetable and at his own directionthe defendants criminal conduct no
doubt left his children without support that could have contributed to their well-being and
development. The defendants attempts to rebuild his relationship with Witness-1, Child-1, and
Child-2, see (PSR 37), are to be commended; they do not, however, alter the fact that he failed
for so many years to provide for his children as he was obliged to under the law. 5
A custodial sentence is also appropriate to promote respect for the law. Any
criminal offense, of course, inherently demonstrates disrespect for the law. In the instant case,
however, the defendants conduct occurred in defiance of court orders and state action, over a
period more than thirteen years long. His failure to pay child support obligations was in direct
contravention of orders issued by New York County Family Court and occurred despite that
court issuing multiple such orders and New York state having to take steps to garnish the
defendants income. The defendants conduct, thus, demonstrates his repeated decisions over the
course of years to evade his responsibilities under the law. The defendants lack of respect for
5

In his interview with the Probation Office, the defendant reported both that his earnings
significantly decreased after the entrance of the court orders imposing the child support
obligations at issue, making it difficult for him to pay, and that he paid for the care of his
children by making payments directly to Witness-1 and to Child-1 and Child-2. See (PSR 35).
Whether or not the defendants assertions about his financial situation are credited, the fact
remains that the New York County Family Court orders were never modified to reduce the
defendants obligations, and he did not follow through in taking steps to obtain such a
modification, though he appears to have been aware that certain procedures existed by which he
could seek such relief. See (id.). Moreover, the defendant does not contestnor could hethat
he has earned a substantial income since at least 2012, when he began appearing on a reality
television show, (PSR 9); nevertheless he continued not to pay, in defiance of court orders.
Nor do the payments made directly to Witness-1, Child-1, and Child-2 reduce the
severity of the offense. The defendant makes no claim, nor could he, that those payments came
close to satisfying the amount of his child support obligations. Moreover, the defendants
obligation to make payments through the legally mandated system was clearly set forth in the
New York County Family Court Order; this system is designed to ensure that child support
orders are complied with and funds are directed to the intended recipients. The defendants
decision to skirt that system in making some payments does not reduce the impact of his criminal
conduct.

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 7 of 8

the law has, unfortunately, continued to be an issue even after his arrest in this case. As this
Court is aware, the defendant has repeatedly failed to appear for drug tests, a required condition
of his supervised release, and has tested positive on multiple occasions for illegal substances. He
has, as a result, been ordered to participate in drug treatment programs on three separate
occasions. This conduct evinces a failure by the defendant to appreciate the gravity of the his
situation and a lack of respect for the Court which imposed the conditions of his release. 6 The
Court should consider the defendants lack of respect for the law, both before and after his arrest,
in imposing sentence.
A sentence of incarceration within the Statutory Range would also serve to deter
this defendant and other similarly situated individuals from future criminal conduct. Certainly,
the imposition of a substantial restitution obligation, which requires the defendant to satisfy his
outstanding obligations, will go a long way toward deterring this defendant. 7 The criminal
avoidance of child support obligations, however, is a societal problem, impacting families and
communities in this District and across the country. The defendant has chosen to put his
prosecution in this case and his relationships with his family in the public eye; indeed, the PSR
notes that most of his children and their mothers have been included in the reality shows in
which he is involved, (PSR 37). The sentence imposed in this casewhich involves both a

The PSR notes that the defendant has been generally compliant with Pretrial Services
and bail conditions. (PSR 5). Though the Government does not discount the difficulties of
the defendants struggle with substance abuse, the defendants release on bail cannot be said to
be characterized by compliance.
7

While the imposition of a custodial sentence may temporarily affect the defendants
ability to work, the fact that any such sentence would be no longer than six months means that
the defendants earning capacity, and his ability to make restitution payments, is not likely to be
substantially altered. This is especially true in light of the fact that the reality television program
on which the defendant appears films only part of the year and as a result of the multiple ongoing
earnings opportunities the defendant identified in his interview with the Probation Office. (PSR
56).
6

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69 Filed 01/27/17 Page 8 of 8

particularly long period of offense conduct and a large amount of neglected child support
obligationswill no doubt send a message to others who might engage in the same conduct as to
the consequences of avoiding their obligations.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that a sentence of
incarceration within the Statutory Range is appropriate in this case and would be sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to serve the legitimate purposes of sentencing.
Dated: New York, New York
January 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

By:

/s/
Katherine Reilly
Assistant United States Attorney
(212) 637-6521

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - x
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
:
- v. :
:
STEVEN JORDAN,
:
a/k/a Stevie Jordan,
:
a/k/a Stevie J,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Proposed
Order of Restitution

S1 15 Cr. 12 (PAC)

Upon the application of the United States of America, by

its attorney, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, Katherine Reilly, Assistant
United States Attorney, of counsel; the presentence report;
STEVEN JORDAN, a/k/a Stevie Jordan, a/k/a Stevie J, the
Defendant=s, conviction on Count One of the above Superseding
Information and all other proceedings in this case, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. Amount of Restitution.

STEVEN JORDAN, a/k/a Stevie

Jordan, a/k/a Stevie J, the Defendant, shall pay restitution

in the total amount of $1,304,835.86 to the victims of the
offenses charged in Count One.

Payments should be made to the

New York State Child Support Processing Center, P.O. Box 15363,
Albany, New York 12212-5363.

Upon advice of a change of

Case 1:15-cr-00012-PAC Document 69-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 2

address, the Clerk of the Court is authorized to send payments

to the new address without further order of this Court.

Dated:

New York, New York

February
, 2017

__________________________________
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE