Free Sentencing Memorandum - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cr-00056-GIVIS Document 19 Filed O1/08/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
Plaintiff,
v. : Criminal Action N0. 07-56-GMS
OMAR BROWN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT BROWN’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW -
APPLICATION OF U.S.S.G. SECTION 6Al.3lal
At the time of sentencing in this matter, the government intends to offer proof
to support a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.l(b)(6) (possession of a
firearm in connection with another felony offense). It is alleged by the government
that Mr. Brown committed an assault and robbery with the firearm he possessed. By
letter dated January 7, 20()8', the government disclosed to defense counsel that the
victim’s name of the alleged robbery and assault is "Rasheed Pernell," and that the
government "does not intend to call this individual at the sentencing hearing" (see
attachment "A"). Defense counsel believes that the law enforcement officers
interviewed Mr. Pernell, and that the government intends to introduce evidence
regarding this interview in support of the government’s request for a 4—level
'The letter was received by Defense Counsel inthe late afternoon on January 7, 2008.

Case 1:07-cr-00056-GIVIS Document 19 Filed O1/08/2008 Page 2 of 4
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). The purpose of this memorandum is to
discuss the legal standard applied when the government seeks a guideline
enhancement based upon hearsay evidence.
A guideline enhancement may rest upon hearsay only if the information
produced by the government "has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
probable accuracy? U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). Our court ofappeals has emphasized the
importance of rigorously applying this standard. United States v. Miele, 989 F.2d
659, 664 (3d Cir. 1993) (sentence vacated and case remanded where evidence did not
meet "indicia of reliability" standard; panel states that "[w]e think this standard
should be applied ri gorously"). Consistent with the Third Circuit’s decision in Miele,
the reliability of the government’s hearsay declarant will be a subject of cross-
examination and argument at sentencing.
/s/
Eleni Kousoulis, Esq.
Assistant Federal Public Defender
704 King St., Suite 1 10
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 573-6010
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant Omar Brown
Date: January 8, 2008
2

Case 1:07-cr-00056-GIVIS Document 19 Filed O1/08/2008 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cr-00056-GIVIS Document 19 Filed O1/08/2008 Page 4 of 4
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney 's Ojice
...· District of Delaware
The Nemours Building (302) 5 73-6277
1007 N. Orange Street, Sniie 700 FAX (302) 573-6220
, P. O. Box 2046
Wilmington, Deinwnre i9899-2046
January 07, 2008
Eleni Kousoulis, Esquire
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Federal Public Defender, District of Delaware
704 King Street, Suite 110
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: United States v. Omar Brown Criminal Action N0. 07-56-GMS
Dear Ms. Kousoulis:
Regarding your earlier discovery request, as noted by Assistant U.S. Attomey Robert J.
Prettyman in his letter dated Januaiy 3, 2008, the Government previously provided you with copies
ofthe redacted police reports relating to the robbery and the assault. You were also provided with
with criminal information related to the individuals involved in the incident.
As supplemental discovery, I am disclosing that the victirn’s name is Rasheed Pernell.
Although the Government is enclosing the name of the victim, it does not intend to call this
individual at the sentencing hearing. The government intends to limit any witnesses to law
enforcement personnel.
Very truly yours,
COLM F. CONNOLLY ·
United States · s -¤ · -
{ if ~ ·l WR
B. · P _ aah; is
Shawn E. ' art ` ak ‘
Special Assistant United St · ttorney