Free Sentencing Memorandum - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cr-00250-AWT

Document 662

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODNEY BRANDY : : : APRIL 6, 2006 NO. 3:02CR250(AWT)

GOVERNMENT'S CROSBY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM The Court of Appeals has remanded the instant case to the District Court in for consideration of United of whether v. re-sentencing 125 is

appropriate

light

States

Booker,

S.Ct.

738(2005) and United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). The defendant has filed a memorandum regarding the issue of resentencing with the consent of the Government. For the reasons set forth at the original sentencing and below, the Government urges the Court to leave the defendant's sentence undisturbed. As the Court is aware, in the wake of Booker, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are strictly advisory. The Court of Appeals has instructed district courts to re-sentence upon remand if, had the Guidelines been advisory at the time of sentencing, the court would have imposed a sentence which is ?non-trivially different? from the one actually imposed. United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 118. In support of his argument that the Court should vacate the defendant's original sentence and impose a new one, the defendant points out that the Court observed that the defendant's final Guideline range was ?very high,? and asserts that the Court

?nevertheless viewed itself as bound by the calculated Sentencing

Case 3:02-cr-00250-AWT

Document 662

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 2 of 3

Guideline range, and thus sentenced the defendant to the very bottom of that Guideline range.? Defendant's Memo at 2. The

Government does not quibble with the defendant's rendition of what the Court actually said or did, but the record does not establish the causal connection between the then-mandatory status of the Guidelines and the sentence the Court chose to impose implied by the defendant. In denying the defendant's request for a downward departure in recognition of his military service, the Court stated that I must admit that even if for some reason you did meet the standard for a downward departure, I would choose not [to] exercise my discretion to depart downward based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case in terms of the [statutory] purposes of imposing a criminal sentence. I believe the need for general deterrence, for one thing, would suggest that it's inappropriate to depart downward in this case on such a ground, even if you did meet the standard. AA202. Thus, the Court has stated in so many words that the

sentence it chose to impose was appropriate, not only under the Guidelines, but also under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), which, along with the calculated Guidelines, is where the Court is left in the wake of Booker.

2

Case 3:02-cr-00250-AWT

Document 662

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 3 of 3

For the reasons set forth above and for those which obtained at the time of sentencing, the Court should decline to vacate the defendant's sentence and impose a new one.

Respectfully submitted, KEVIN J. O'CONNOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY H. GORDON HALL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FEDERAL BAR NO. CT05153

BY:

S. DAVE VATTI ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FEDERAL BAR NO. CT11957 450 MAIN STREET HARTFORD, CT 06103 (860) 947-1101

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the within and foregoing was mailed, postage pre-paid, this 6th day of April, 2006 to: Joseph W. Martini, Esq. Pepe & Hazard LLP 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890-1436 ________________________________ S. DAVE VATTI ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

3