Marilyn Flynn Sentencing Memo by Government Prosecutors in Case of Mark Ridley-Thomas

Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 387 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:10266
1 E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
2 MACK E. JENKINS
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
LINDSEY GREER DOTSON (Cal. Bar No. 266973)
4 THOMAS F. RYBARCZYK (Cal. Bar No. 316124)
MICHAEL J. MORSE (Cal. Bar No. 291763)
5 Assistant United States Attorneys
Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section
6 1500 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
7 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-4443/8452/7367
8 Facsimile: (213) 894-0141
E-mail: lindsey.dotson@usdoj.gov
9 thomas.rybarczyk@usdoj.gov
michael.morse@usdoj.gov
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR 21-00485-DSF-2
15 Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING POSITION

FOR DEFENDANT MARILYN LOUISE FLYNN
16 v.
Sentencing: July 24, 2023
17 MARILYN LOUISE FLYNN, Time: 8:30 a.m.
Location: Courtroom of the
18 Defendant. Hon. Dale S. Fischer
19
20
21 Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel

22 of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
23 California and Assistant United States Attorneys Lindsey Greer
24 Dotson, Thomas F. Rybarczyk, and Michael J. Morse, hereby files its
25 sentencing position for defendant MARILYN LOUISE FLYNN.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1 The government’s sentencing position is based upon the attached
2 memorandum of points and authorities, the files and records in this
3 case, and such further evidence and argument as the Court may permit.
4 Dated: July 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
5 E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
6
MACK E. JENKINS
7 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
8
9 /s/ Lindsey Greer Dotson

LINDSEY GREER DOTSON
10 THOMAS F. RYBARCZYK
MICHAEL J. MORSE
11 Assistant United States Attorneys
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION...................................................1
3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................2
4 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................6
5 IV. ARGUMENT.......................................................7
6 A. The Guidelines Calculation: Defendant Has a Total
Offense Level of 21 and Guidelines Range of 37 to 46
7 Months....................................................7
8 B. The Government’s Recommendation: A Sentence of
36 Months’ Probation, Including 18 Months’ Home
9 Confinement, and a Fine of $150,000 Is Necessary
to Punish and Deter.......................................8
10
1. Any Sentence Imposed Must Punish Defendant
11 for Her Egregious Conduct and Provide General
Deterrence...........................................9
12
2. Defendant’s Extraordinary Acceptance of
13 Responsibility, History and Characteristics, and
the Unique Circumstances of This Bribery Scheme
14 Warrant a Non-Custodial Sentence for Defendant......11
15 3. The Court Should Impose a Fine of $150,000..........16
16 V. CONCLUSION....................................................17
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 While Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of
4 Southern California (“USC”), defendant MARILYN LOUISE FLYNN
5 (“defendant”) participated in a bribery scheme at the direction of
6 one of the most powerful politicians in Los Angeles, then-Los Angeles
7 County Supervisor and co-defendant MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS (“RIDLEY-
8 THOMAS”). Desperate for Los Angeles County contracts to improve her
9 school’s ailing finances and well aware that RIDLEY-THOMAS held the
10 keys to County business, defendant willingly agreed to extend any
11 benefit at her disposal to RIDLEY-THOMAS and his troubled son. After
12 securing USC admission, a full-tuition scholarship, and even a paid
13 professorship for RIDLEY-THOMAS’s son, defendant agreed to RIDLEY-
14 THOMAS’s most brazen ask of all -- the secret funneling of $100,000
15 in campaign funds through USC to a non-profit headed by RIDLEY-
16 THOMAS’s son, all to disguise the true source of the money and clean
17 the funds’ connection to RIDLEY-THOMAS. For this conduct, defendant
18 pled guilty to Bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666.
19 Defendant -- an 84-year-old woman with no criminal history --
20 now faces a United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 37 to 46
21 months. The government requests a sentence of 36 months’ probation,
22 including a term of 18 months’ home confinement, and a fine of
23 $150,000. Consistent with the plea agreement, the government is not
24 seeking a custodial sentence. While the severity of defendant’s
25 conduct and the societal harm wrought by public corruption weigh in
26 favor of incarceration, multiple competing factors taken together
27 justify the government’s requested sentence. Among those factors are
28 defendant’s advanced age, her health and personal history, her

1 culpability as compared to RIDLEY-THOMAS, the lack of a need for
2 specific deterrence, and most especially, defendant’s early and
3 fulsome acceptance of responsibility, including her voluntary
4 disclosure of incriminating information previously unknown to the
5 government. Contrary to Probation’s recommended sentence of 24
6 months’ probation, it is imperative that any probationary sentence be
7 more substantial in length, include a significant term of home
8 confinement, and consist of a sizeable fine. A more robust
9 probationary sentence, like what the government recommends, is
10 necessary to better reflect the seriousness of defendant’s crime and
11 combat the significant deleterious effects corruption imposes upon
12 the public trust.
13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1
14 Background
15 From approximately 1997 to 2018, defendant was a tenured faculty
16 member at USC and Dean of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of
17 Social Work (“Social Work School”). USC was a private research
18 university located in the Second District of the County of Los

19 Angeles.
20 RIDLEY-THOMAS was a member of the Los Angeles County Board of
21 Supervisors for the Second District from approximately 2008 to 2020
22 and served as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in or around
23 2017. The five-member Board of Supervisors was the governing body of
24
25 1The Statement of Facts is based on the Factual Basis in

defendant’s plea agreement, the Presentence Report (“PSR”), and,
26 where noted, government exhibits and witness testimony from the trial
of RIDLEY-THOMAS. The excerpts of the Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”)
27 cited herein were filed at docket number 363-1. The government’s
trial exhibits were manually filed with the Court at docket number
28 366.
2
1 the County and had executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial roles.
2 As a Supervisor, RIDLEY-THOMAS was a high-level, elected public
3 official and an agent of the County.
4 USC Telehealth Contract
5 In 2018, defendant was seeking an amendment to an existing
6 contract between USC/the Social Work School and the Los Angeles
7 County Department of Mental Health (“DMH”) related to services
8 provided by USC Telehealth (“Telehealth”). Telehealth was a clinic
9 whereby Social Work School students provided online mental health and
10 counseling services to patients referred by the County. USC and the
11 Social Work School received compensation in return for services
12 rendered.
13 In April 2018, RIDLEY-THOMAS was aware of defendant’s desire to
14 secure an amended Telehealth contract with DMH and the County.
15 RIDLEY-THOMAS also knew that defendant wanted a meeting with Jonathan
16 Sherin (“Sherin”), the DMH Director and a high-level County public
17 official, to facilitate and accelerate the necessary approvals for
18 the amended Telehealth contract.
19 The $100,000 Payment
20 At RIDLEY-THOMAS’s request, defendant agreed to have USC serve
21 as a conduit for a $100,000 payment from RIDLEY-THOMAS’s campaign
22 account to the Social Work School and to then facilitate a nearly
23 simultaneous $100,000 payment from USC to the United Ways of
24 California (“United Ways”) for the benefit of the Policy, Research &
25 Practice Initiative (“PRPI”). PRPI was a new nonprofit initiative
26 led by RIDLEY-THOMAS’s son, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, who had recently
27 and abruptly resigned from his elected position in the California
28 State Assembly.
3
1 RIDLEY-THOMAS requested defendant’s help in directing the
2 $100,000 payment during a meeting on April 26, 2018. During that
3 meeting, RIDLEY-THOMAS and defendant discussed the $100,000 payment
4 and PRPI as well as County business that could benefit USC. Both
5 defendant and RIDLEY-THOMAS understood that defendant’s assistance
6 with the $100,000 payment would further secure RIDLEY-THOMAS’s
7 support for the amended Telehealth contract, especially by RIDLEY-
8 THOMAS facilitating a meeting between defendant and Sherin for the
9 purpose of having Sherin move forward expeditiously with the amended
10 Telehealth contract for USC/the Social Work School. The amended
11 Telehealth contract provided more lucrative terms and would help to
12 ensure Telehealth’s “survival” as it struggled to stay afloat
13 financially. (See, e.g., Exs. 101-103; see also Exs. 314-316, 576;
14 03-08-23 RT 485:15-20, 489:12-491:7, 493:12-20, 495:15-18, 496:7-11.)
15 On May 2, 2018, RIDLEY-THOMAS sent a letter to defendant with a
16 $100,000 check from his campaign account made payable to the Social
17 Work School. RIDLEY-THOMAS’s letter read: “Please find enclosed
18 tangible acknowledgement of the important work of the Suzanne Dworak

19 Peck School of Social Work in Los Angeles and beyond. As Dean, these
20 funds can be used at your discretion in order to best facilitate the
21 impressive policy and practical work of the School and its impact in
22 the community.” In truth, though, these funds were not to be used at
23 defendant’s discretion, nor were they for the benefit of the Social
24 Work School. The money was always intended to benefit PRPI and
25 RIDLEY-THOMAS’s son. Both defendant and RIDLEY-THOMAS understood and
26 agreed that, upon receipt of the $100,000 from RIDLEY-THOMAS’s
27 campaign account, defendant would facilitate an immediate $100,000
28
4
1 payment from USC to United Ways for the benefit of PRPI and RIDLEY-
2 THOMAS’s son.
3 On May 3, 2018, RIDLEY-THOMAS emailed defendant the bank wiring
4 information for United Ways to facilitate the $100,000 payment from
5 USC to United Ways. RIDLEY-THOMAS told defendant that it was
6 “necessary to act with dispatch” to facilitate USC’s payment to
7 United Ways “no later than May 15th” so that United Ways/PRPI would
8 have the funds needed to hire an employee.
9 On May 4, 2018, RIDLEY-THOMAS emailed defendant and told her to
10 contact a representative for United Ways to assure United Ways that
11 defendant and USC had “begun the funds transfer,” in other words,
12 that USC was certain to make the $100,000 payment to United Ways.
13 RIDLEY-THOMAS sought to assure United Ways that funding for PRPI was
14 in progress so that United Ways would permit PRPI and Sebastian
15 Ridley-Thomas to hire the employee.
16 On May 8, 2018, defendant emailed RIDLEY-THOMAS to let him know
17 that the $100,000 payment had been “cleared” and that the check to
18 United Ways/PRPI would be “overnight mailed.” The $100,000 check
19 from USC to United Ways/PRPI was then delivered on or about May 11,
20 2018.
21 After defendant had informed RIDLEY-THOMAS that everything had
22 been “cleared” and the $100,000 payment to United Ways/PRPI was
23 forthcoming, defendant met with Sherin on May 10, 2018 to discuss the
24 amended Telehealth contract. RIDLEY-THOMAS facilitated this meeting.
25 On May 11, 2018, the same day the $100,000 check was delivered to
26 United Ways/PRPI, RIDLEY-THOMAS emailed defendant to discuss County
27 business -- in his words, to talk about “master contract stuff” and
28
5
1 “somehow use yesterday’s ‘discussion’ to advance it [winking face
2 emoji].”
3 The Concealment and Violation of USC Policy
4 For their scheme to succeed, both defendant and RIDLEY-THOMAS
5 concealed from USC that RIDLEY-THOMAS had directed a $100,000 payment
6 to USC with the intent that the funds be used to facilitate USC’s
7 nearly simultaneous $100,000 payment to United Ways/PRPI. Had this
8 fact been known to USC, USC would not have approved the $100,000
9 payment to United Ways/PRPI.
10 Furthermore, for defendant to successfully direct the $100,000
11 payment to United Ways/PRPI by the May 15, 2018 deadline set by
12 RIDLEY-THOMAS, defendant violated numerous USC policies and misled
13 USC. (Exs. 116, 143, 148, 135; 03-14-23 RT 1179:4-1180:17, 1299:13-
14 1301:5; 03-15-23 RT 1350:22-1358:15.) For example, as noted in her
15 plea agreement, defendant violated USC Accounting Department policy
16 and improperly used a vendor account at USC to process the $100,000
17 payment. Defendant’s use of this vendor account violated USC policy
18 because, as defendant knew, United Ways and PRPI were not vendors
19 providing services to USC. Defendant improperly used a vendor
20 account for the purpose of expediting the $100,000 payment to ensure
21 that the payment could be released from the current fiscal year funds
22 and to meet the May 15, 2018 payment deadline set by RIDLEY-THOMAS.
23 Had defendant’s violation of USC policy been known to USC, USC would
24 not have approved the $100,000 payment to United Ways/PRPI.
25 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
26 A federal grand jury returned a 20-count indictment against
27 defendant and RIDLEY-THOMAS for Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), Bribery
28 (18 U.S.C. § 666), and Honest Services Mail and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C.
6
1 §§ 1341, 1343, 1346). The indictment alleged that, in exchange for
2 County contracts and amendments to existing contracts, RIDLEY-THOMAS
3 solicited and demanded, and defendant offered and agreed to give, the
4 following: (1) admission to USC for Sebastian Ridley-Thomas to obtain
5 a master’s degree; (2) a full-tuition scholarship for Sebastian
6 Ridley-Thomas to attend USC; (3) a paid professorship for Sebastian
7 Ridley-Thomas to teach at USC while he was a student; and (4) the
8 secret funneling of $100,000 from RIDLEY-THOMAS’s campaign committee
9 through USC to United Ways/PRPI. (Dkt. 1.) On September 19, 2022,
10 defendant pled guilty to Bribery, as charged in Count 3, pursuant to
11 a plea agreement. (Dkts. 112, 114.)
12 IV. ARGUMENT
13 A. The Guidelines Calculation: Defendant Has a Total Offense
14 Level of 21 and Guidelines Range of 37 to 46 Months
15 Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the government
16 requests that the Court calculate the Guidelines as follows:
17 Base Offense Level 12 [U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(a)(2)]
18 Specific Offense Characteristics

19 • Offense Involving +4 [U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3)]
Elected Official
20
• Value of the Bribe +8 [U.S.S.G. §§ 2C1.1(b)(2),
21 [$100,000 Payment] 2B1.1(b)(1)(E)] 2
22 Acceptance of Responsibility -3 [U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1]
23
Total Offense Level 21
24
2The enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2) can be calculated
25 based either on the value of the bribe (the $100,000 payment) or the
value of the benefit to be obtained (the Telehealth contract worth
26 $530,323). Although the PSR is not incorrect in its calculation,
which is based on the value of the benefit to be obtained, the
27 government requests that the Court honor the parties’ agreement to
calculate the § 2C1.1(b)(2) enhancement based on the value of the
28 bribe. Defendant should receive the benefit of her bargain.
7
1 The parties have agreed not to seek any other specific offense
2 characteristics, adjustments, or enhancements. (Dkt. 112, ¶ 11.)
3 Accordingly, with a Total Offense Level of 21 and Criminal History
4 Category I, defendant’s Guidelines range is 37 to 46 months.
5 B. The Government’s Recommendation: A Sentence of 36 Months’
6 Probation, Including 18 Months’ Home Confinement, and
7 a Fine of $150,000 Is Necessary to Punish and Deter
8 In determining a sufficient sentence, courts must consider the
9 nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense. 18 U.S.C.
10 § 3553(a). So too must courts weigh the need for a sentence to
11 afford adequate deterrence, just punishment, and promote respect for
12 the law. Id. Balanced against those factors, which are considerable
13 here, are defendant’s history and characteristics, the unique
14 circumstances of her case, and her fulsome acceptance of
15 responsibility. Id. Given careful consideration of all these
16 factors and the kinds of sentences available, the government
17 respectfully requests a sentence of 36 months to be served by way of
18 probation, including 18 months of home confinement. 3 A significant

19 fine of $150,000 is also important given the egregiousness of
20
21
22 3Because Section 666 Bribery is a Class C felony, defendant may

be sentenced to a term of probation. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3561, 3569(a)(3).
23 Although the Guidelines preclude a probationary sentence unless
defendant’s Guidelines range falls in Zone A or B (U.S.S.G.
24 § 5B1.1(a), cmt. n.2), a 10-level downward variance pursuant to the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is appropriate here given defendant’s
25 unique history and characteristics, among other factors detailed
herein. With this variance, defendant’s revised Guidelines range is
26 8 to 14 months in Zone B. Because the revised range is in Zone B
(and not Zone A), the Guidelines require a term of intermittent
27 confinement, community confinement, or home detention of no less than
8 months in the event the Court sentences defendant to a term of
28 probation. U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1(a)(2), cmt. n.1(B).
8
1 defendant’s conduct. 4 Such a sentence would be sufficient, but not
2 greater than necessary, to adequately punish and deter.
3 1. Any Sentence Imposed Must Punish Defendant for Her
4 Egregious Conduct and Provide General Deterrence 5
5 Given the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense,
6 a substantial sentence is imperative not only for just punishment but
7 especially for general deterrence. When called upon by RIDLEY-THOMAS
8 to engage in a corrupt scheme and funnel $100,000 through USC for the
9 secret benefit of his son, defendant jumped at the opportunity. She
10 acted to preserve her school’s financial viability and, in doing so,
11 her own legacy and six-figure salary. Defendant facilitated a
12 bribery scheme that has rocked Los Angeles, shaking the public’s
13 faith in government and elected officials. And without defendant’s
14 assistance and acquiescence to RIDLEY-THOMAS’s demands, this corrupt
15 and damaging scheme could not have come to fruition.
16 Defendant’s corruption was not a victimless crime. She not only
17 betrayed USC with her corrupt and deceptive dealings, but she also
18 deceived United Ways, an innocent and uninvolved non-profit.
19 Defendant manipulated both entities, lying to her colleagues at USC
20
21 4 Per the plea agreement, defendant agreed to pay a $100,000

fine, and the government agreed not to seek a fine above $150,000.
22 (Dkt. 112, ¶¶ 2(h), 3(f).)
23 5 The government offers its position on the severity of
defendant’s crime, not to suggest that a custodial sentence be
24 imposed, but instead, to rebut the recommendation of Probation and
anticipated request of defendant that she not serve any term of home
25 confinement. Indeed, Probation calculates a higher Guidelines range
of 57 to 71 based on the value of the Telehealth contract and yet,
26 with little justification, recommends a strictly probationary
sentence without any term of confinement. (Dkt. 376.) A
27 probationary sentence without a term of home confinement runs counter
to the Guidelines and does not adequately reflect the nature,
28 circumstances, or severity of defendant’s crime.
9
1 and deceiving well-intentioned staff at United Ways, all to
2 facilitate a self-serving and corrupt scheme directed and
3 orchestrated by RIDLEY-THOMAS.
4 Beyond USC and United Ways, the principal victim of defendant’s
5 crime is the public. Corruption harms society by breeding skepticism
6 about government and eroding public trust integral to the proper
7 functioning of any civilized society. It taints the public’s notions
8 of fair play and justice, inking a stain not easily erased.
9 Corruption “demoralizes and unfairly stigmatizes the dedicated work
10 of honest public servants,” undermining “the essential confidence in
11 our democracy.” United States v. Spano, 411 F. Supp. 2d 923, 940
12 (N.D. Ill. 2006), affirmed, 477 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2006).
13 General deterrence is therefore especially important in public
14 corruption cases. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227,
15 1240 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Because economic and fraud based crimes are
16 more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or
17 opportunity, these crimes are prime candidates for general
18 deterrence. Defendants in white collar crimes often calculate the

19 financial gain and risk of loss, and white collar crime therefore can
20 be affected and reduced with serious punishment.”) (cleaned up);
21 United States v. Watkins, 691 F.3d 841, 853 (6th Cir. 2012) (general
22 deterrence important to combat “widespread corruption”). As one
23 court noted: “We need not resign ourselves to the fact that
24 corruption exists in government. Unlike some criminal justice
25 issues, the crime of public corruption can be deterred by significant
26 penalties that hold all offenders properly accountable. The only way
27 to protect the public from the ongoing problem of public corruption
28 and to promote respect for the rule of law is to impose strict
10
1 penalties on all defendants who engage in such conduct, many of whom
2 have specialized legal training or experiences.” Spano, 411 F. Supp.
3 2d at 940.
4 Accordingly, a meaningful sentence is imperative, not merely for
5 just punishment, but to promote general deterrence and respect for
6 the law. After all, were it not for private actors like defendant
7 willing to “play ball” and agree to a corrupt official’s demands,
8 corruption could not persist. Any sentence must signal to private
9 actors and public officials alike that there are real and appreciable
10 consequences for engaging in bribery and perpetuating the scourge of
11 corruption plaguing Los Angeles and beyond.
12 2. Defendant’s Extraordinary Acceptance of
13 Responsibility, History and Characteristics, and
14 the Unique Circumstances of This Bribery Scheme
15 Warrant a Non-Custodial Sentence for Defendant
16 The severity of defendant’s conduct and the societal ills of
17 public corruption weigh in favor of incarceration. Indeed, the
18 government will be seeking a term of imprisonment for RIDLEY-THOMAS

19 for the reasons it will outline in depth in its sentence position.
20 With respect to defendant, however, certain factors counsel against
21 custody. Among those factors are defendant’s age (84 years old), her
22 health and personal history, her culpability as compared to RIDLEY-
23 THOMAS, the lack of a need for specific deterrence, and most
24 especially, defendant’s early and fulsome acceptance of
25 responsibility, including by voluntarily providing information
26 previously unknown to the government about her own culpability.
27 In light of Congress’s mandate to consider the kinds of
28 sentences available and not seek a sentence that is greater than
11
1 necessary to punish and deter, the government agreed in the plea
2 agreement that, as part of defendant’s early and fulsome acceptance
3 of responsibility, it would recommend a non-custodial sentence.
4 However, because a probationary sentence carries a perception of
5 leniency which can undermine the goal of general deterrence, it is
6 imperative that any probationary sentence be substantial in length,
7 include a significant term of home confinement, and consist of a
8 meaningful fine. Therefore, to better reflect the severity
9 defendant’s actions and counteract perceptions of unwarranted
10 leniency, the government requests a sentence of 36 months’ probation,
11 including a term of 18 months’ home confinement, and a fine of
12 $150,000. Multiple factors, taken together, justify the government’s
13 requested non-custodial sentence.
14 To begin, defendant is 84 years old. Her medical history, which
15 the government will not recount in a public filing, is detailed in
16 the PSR. (Dkt. 377, ¶¶ 90-93.) Defendant’s advanced age, health,
17 and the effects that federal incarceration may have on her health are
18 factors that weigh in favor of an alternative to imprisonment,
19 provided of course that other factors too counsel in favor of a non-
20 custodial sentence. They do.
21 A significant factor weighing heavily in favor of a probationary
22 sentence is defendant’s early and fulsome acceptance of
23 responsibility. Unlike RIDLEY-THOMAS, defendant accepted
24 responsibility, pled guilty months before trial, and did not engage
25 in any litigation with the government, let alone frivolous
26 litigation. She preserved substantial government resources and
27 should receive favorable consideration for doing so. The government
28 cannot take every case to trial. Acceptance of responsibility, when
12
1 done sufficiently in advance of trial, must be incentivized to enable
2 the government to preserve its resources and continue investigation
3 in numerous other cases. Further, defendant’s detailed admission of
4 her conduct in the Factual Basis meaningfully serves the public by
5 providing finality, clarity, and a first step towards restoring the
6 public trust.
7 In an even greater testament to defendant’s fulsome acceptance
8 of responsibility, she provided the government with new information
9 about her own culpability. Through counsel, defendant flagged yet
10 another lie she told USC to funnel the $100,000 in RIDLEY-THOMAS’s
11 campaign funds through USC to United Ways/PRPI. Her plea agreement
12 captures that new information as follows:
13 Furthermore, in order for defendant to successfully direct

the $100,000 payment to United Ways/PRPI by the desired May
14 15, 2018 deadline set by co-defendant RIDLEY-THOMAS,
defendant violated USC Accounting Department policy and
15 improperly used a vendor account at USC to process the
$100,000 payment. Defendant’s use of this vendor account
16 violated USC policy because, as defendant knew, United Ways
and PRPI were not vendors providing services to USC.
17 Defendant improperly used a vendor account for the purpose
of expediting the $100,000 payment to ensure that the
18 payment could be released from the current fiscal year
funds and to meet the May 15, 2018 payment deadline set by
19 co-defendant RIDLEY-THOMAS. Had defendant’s violation of
USC policy been known to USC, USC would not have approved
20 the $100,000 payment to United Ways/PRPI.
21 (Dkt. 112, ¶ 9.) But for defendant’s admission, the government would
22 not have known about defendant’s efforts to deceive USC by falsely
23 labeling United Ways and PRPI as “vendors” to funnel the $100,000
24 more quickly through the university. Defendant was under no
25 obligation to disclose this new information. Indeed, the government
26 was unaware that defendant had this additional information to give.
27 But she provided it anyway. And of note, it was information that
28 implicated her, not simply information that pointed to the
13
1 culpability of others or deflected blame. Defendant has accepted
2 responsibility in a fulsome and extraordinary manner, and her
3 sentence must reflect that.
4 Beyond the uniqueness of defendant’s acceptance of
5 responsibility are her role in the scheme and the relative power
6 imbalance between defendant and RIDLEY-THOMAS. Make no mistake,
7 defendant was a power broker in her own right. She was a prominent
8 leader in the field of social work, having stood at the helm of one
9 of the largest social work schools in the country for two decades.
10 But next to one of the Five Kings and Queens of Los Angeles,
11 defendant’s power paled in comparison. As members of the largest
12 governing body in the country, RIDLEY-THOMAS and the four other
13 Supervisors controlled the County’s $30 billion budget. RIDLEY-
14 THOMAS held a monopoly over County business in the Second District,
15 and defendant could not afford to displease him. The trial of
16 RIDLEY-THOMAS showed that when he came calling for benefits for his
17 son and leveraged the power of his office, defendant obliged. And
18 although defendant obliged eagerly and willingly, evidence also

19 showed that her eagerness at times bordered on desperation. She
20 needed RIDLEY-THOMAS’s support for her struggling school and worked
21 to deliver on his requests. This was most acute with respect to the
22 $100,000 payment. Defendant did not conjure up a scheme to funnel
23 RIDLEY-THOMAS’s campaign funds through USC on her own. She had no
24 way of knowing that such a scheme was even a desire of RIDLEY-
25 THOMAS’s but for him proposing it. Emails and witness testimony
26 showed that RIDLEY-THOMAS orchestrated the $100,000 transaction,
27 including by setting a May 15, 2018 deadline for the payment and
28 directing defendant to “act with dispatch” to meet his deadline and
14
1 inform United Ways that she had “begun the funds transfer.” (See,
2 e.g., Exs. 335, 341.) Defendant acted, time and again, at the
3 direction and request of RIDLEY-THOMAS.
4 Defendant clearly felt the weight of RIDLEY-THOMAS’s asks.
5 Indeed, at one point during the seven-day sprint to get the money
6 funneled through USC, defendant went to the office of Adriana
7 Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), an administrative assistant at the Social Work
8 School who was helping get the $100,000 check issued to United
9 Ways/PRPI. Seemingly desperate to meet RIDLEY-THOMAS’s May 15th
10 deadline, defendant urged Gonzalez to get the $100,000 payment issued
11 quickly. In this highly unusual encounter, defendant disclosed to
12 Gonzalez that she feared getting “in trouble” if USC did not issue
13 the check to United Ways/PRPI. (03-15-23 RT 1346:4-1347:18.)
14 Although defendant did not divulge whom she feared, under the
15 circumstances, the only person with whom defendant could have gotten
16 “in trouble” was RIDLEY-THOMAS. That is because, had defendant
17 failed to move the money out of USC to RIDLEY-THOMAS’s son, that
18 failure would have represented a significant financial loss to
19 RIDLEY-THOMAS who did not actually intend for his $100,000 in
20 campaign funds to remain at USC. The fact that defendant, a powerful
21 woman in her own right, worried about getting “in trouble” with
22 RIDLEY-THOMAS speaks to his power over defendant and the County
23 business defendant so desperately needed. While defendant is far
24 from a victim and remains responsible for her criminal conduct,
25 relative to RIDLEY-THOMAS, she is far less culpable. She was not the
26 public official with a hand out seeking to monetize an official
27 position. She did not initiate the corrupt relationship. She did
28 not ask RIDLEY-THOMAS if she could funnel $100,000 of his campaign
15
1 money through USC to benefit his son. The solicitations and pressure
2 flowed one direction -- from RIDLEY-THOMAS to defendant.
3 Defendant’s motives for engaging in the bribery scheme are also
4 slightly mitigating as compared to other defendants. Unlike most
5 bribe-payors, her bribe was not intended to elicit a personal,
6 private benefit for herself or someone close to her. She was not a
7 real estate developer, for example, bribing a high-level official for
8 a multimillion-dollar contract to reap personal financial gain.
9 Although she indirectly benefitted from keeping her job and
10 substantial salary by securing lucrative County contracts, those
11 contracts were for the Social Work School and its work in the
12 community, not a private business she owned.
13 Similarly, defendant’s history and characteristics are also
14 mitigating. As the PSR notes and her letters of support confirm,
15 defendant has dedicated her life to social work, higher education,
16 and improving the lives of others. Her history is not riddled with
17 other instances of deceit, greed, or corruption. And while prior
18 good work and professional accomplishments cannot undo the harm she
19 caused, her history and characteristics speak to her ability to
20 function outside of a custodial sentence and demonstrate she is
21 unlikely to reoffend. Ultimately, imprisonment is not necessary for
22 specific deterrence, particularly given that defendant has left USC
23 and is no longer positioned to engage in similar corruption.
24 3. The Court Should Impose a Fine of $150,000
25 In addition to the non-custodial sentence discussed above, the
26 Court should order defendant to pay a fine of $150,000. The
27 Guidelines state that the Court “shall impose a fine in all cases,
28 except where the defendant establishes that [s]he is unable to pay
16
1 and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.” U.S.S.G.
2 § 5E1.2(a). The government concurs with the PSR that defendant is
3 able to pay a fine of $150,000 immediately. Such a fine is necessary
4 to promote respect for the law and afford deterrence, particularly
5 when coupled with the government’s request for a probationary
6 sentence.
7 V. CONCLUSION
8 For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests
9 that this Court sentence defendant to 36 months’ probation, including
10 an 18-month term of home confinement, and order defendant to pay a
11 fine of $150,000. Such a sentence would be sufficient, but not
12 greater than necessary, to adequately punish and deter. Anything
13 less would be unjustified and far too lenient given the seriousness
14 of defendant’s crime and the strong need for general deterrence.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

Marilyn Flynn Sentencing Memo by Government Prosecutors in Case of Mark Ridley-Thomas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marilyn Flynn Sentencing Memo by Government Prosecutors in Case of Mark Ridley-Thomas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 387 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:10266

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR 21-00485-DSF-2

15 Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING POSITION

21 Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel

1 The government’s sentencing position is based upon the attached

2 memorandum of points and authorities, the files and records in this

4 Dated: July 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

9 /s/ Lindsey Greer Dotson

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3 While Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of

4 Southern California (“USC”), defendant MARILYN LOUISE FLYNN

5 (“defendant”) participated in a bribery scheme at the direction of

6 one of the most powerful politicians in Los Angeles, then-Los Angeles

7 County Supervisor and co-defendant MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS (“RIDLEY-

8 THOMAS”). Desperate for Los Angeles County contracts to improve her

10 keys to County business, defendant willingly agreed to extend any

11 benefit at her disposal to RIDLEY-THOMAS and his troubled son. After

12 securing USC admission, a full-tuition scholarship, and even a paid

13 professorship for RIDLEY-THOMAS’s son, defendant agreed to RIDLEY-

14 THOMAS’s most brazen ask of all -- the secret funneling of $100,000

15 in campaign funds through USC to a non-profit headed by RIDLEY-

17 the funds’ connection to RIDLEY-THOMAS. For this conduct, defendant

18 pled guilty to Bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666.

19 Defendant -- an 84-year-old woman with no criminal history --

20 now faces a United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 37 to 46

21 months. The government requests a sentence of 36 months’ probation,

22 including a term of 18 months’ home confinement, and a fine of

23 $150,000. Consistent with the plea agreement, the government is not

24 seeking a custodial sentence. While the severity of defendant’s

25 conduct and the societal harm wrought by public corruption weigh in

26 favor of incarceration, multiple competing factors taken together

27 justify the government’s requested sentence. Among those factors are

28 defendant’s advanced age, her health and personal history, her

1 culpability as compared to RIDLEY-THOMAS, the lack of a need for

2 specific deterrence, and most especially, defendant’s early and

3 fulsome acceptance of responsibility, including her voluntary

4 disclosure of incriminating information previously unknown to the

5 government. Contrary to Probation’s recommended sentence of 24

6 months’ probation, it is imperative that any probationary sentence be

7 more substantial in length, include a significant term of home

8 confinement, and consist of a sizeable fine. A more robust

9 probationary sentence, like what the government recommends, is

10 necessary to better reflect the seriousness of defendant’s crime and

11 combat the significant deleterious effects corruption imposes upon

12 the public trust.

13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1

15 From approximately 1997 to 2018, defendant was a tenured faculty

16 member at USC and Dean of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of

17 Social Work (“Social Work School”). USC was a private research

18 university located in the Second District of the County of Los

20 RIDLEY-THOMAS was a member of the Los Angeles County Board of

21 Supervisors for the Second District from approximately 2008 to 2020

22 and served as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in or around

23 2017. The five-member Board of Supervisors was the governing body of

25 1The Statement of Facts is based on the Factual Basis in

1 the County and had executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial roles.

2 As a Supervisor, RIDLEY-THOMAS was a high-level, elected public

3 official and an agent of the County.

4 USC Telehealth Contract

5 In 2018, defendant was seeking an amendment to an existing