Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cr-00249-JCH Document 203 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 4
F ll. IE.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTM] _]1_\|_ 2 (] A lU‘ Sq
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No.: 3:00;g§R3QOf34H;_UCJBD?iT
‘E"iit3.EiEPOR I. C ls -- q
ERNEST ORTALE : JULY 19, 2007
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE
Ernest Ortale, through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Court
terminate his probation pursuant to Rule 32.1(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18
U.S.C. § 3564(c), and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Mr. Ortale presents the following memorandum in
support of his motion for early termination of supervised release.
Section 3564(c) states that the Court, after considering the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a), may temrinate a term of probation and discharge the defendant at any time aiter the
expiration of one year of probation in felony cases. Mr. Ortale began his probation upon his
release from detention in January, 2005, well beyond the minimum one year requirement.
Both §§ 3564(c) and 3583(e) state that the court may terminate supervised release if the
court is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of
justice. A district court considering a motion for early termination of supervised release need not
make specific findings of fact as to the Section 3553 (a) factors, although the court must state that
it has considered those facts or otherwise demonstrate that it has considered them. United States
v. Gamrnarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315-16 (2d Cir. 2003).
Applying the §3553(a) factors and the requirements of §§ 3564(c) and 3583 (e) to the
facts of this case, it is clear that this is the type of case where early termination is warranted.
1

Case 3:00-cr-00249-JCH Document 203 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 Ol 4
The first §355 3 (a) factor includes "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant? Mr. Ortale was charged with a non-violent offense
involving a conspiracy to distribute marihuana. Mr. Ortale had not been arrested or convicted of
any crime within the ten years preceding his current offense. He has never been arrested for any
violent offense. Similarly, his conduct in prison revealed no propensity for violence.
Mr. Ortale’s conduct since his arrest for this off`ense shows consistent cooperation with
federal authorities. His cooperation began when, in a timely fashion, he accepted responsibility
for his criminal acts, plead guilty, paid the $10,000 fine included in his sentence, and voluntarily
surrendered to the Bureau of Prisons facility to which he was designated. Mr. Ortale cooperated
with the government’s case against other individuals and testified at their trial. His testimony
proved to be an important factor in the convictions of those individuals. As a result of this
cooperation, the govemment made a U.S. Sentencing Guideline §5.K motion for a sentence
below the guideline range. At Mr. Ortale’s sentencing, the Court agreed that he had provided
substantial assistance to the government and reduced his prison sentence from its initial length,
four to six yeais, to twenty months. He was released after serving eighteen months with a clear
record of good behavior.
The second factor ill §3553(a)(2) is the need for the sentence imposed — (A) to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment. The
significant reduction in Mr. Ortale’s sentence (4-6 years reduced 20 months) under the federal
guidelines was a reflection of his substantial cooperation with the government. The reduction
was only granted after Mr. Ortale placed himself at substantial risk by testifying against other
defendants and threw himself at the mercy of the court. In light of Mr. Ortale’s substantial
2

Case 3:00-cr-00249-JCH Document 203 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 4
assistance to the government, early termination of his supervised release will not minimize the
seriousness of the offense, hinder respect for the law, or impede just punislnnent.
§3553(a)(2)(B) discusses the need to afford adequate deterrence for criminal conduct. As
discussed above, Mr. Ortale faced a significant prison term of 4-6 years. The reduction to twenty
months was imposed after his acceptance of responsibility for his crime and cooperation in
obtaining the convictions of other individuals. Thus, the impact of the sentence and early
termination will not effectuate deterrence, but will provide an incentive to other criminal
defendants to cooperate with the government.
Other factors set forth in §3553 (a)(2)(C) and (D) include the need to protect the public
Hom further crimes ofthe defendant and to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective marmer.
Mr. Ortale’s conduct since his release demonstrates that these goals have been realized. He has
not been arrested or implicated in any criminal conduct since his release. Further, Mr. Ortale has
taken and passed every bi-weekly and monthly drug test required during his probation.
Other considerations indicate that Mr. Ortale has achieved the goals of supervised release
and that his term of probation should be terminated. Mr. Ortale has stabilized his life and
successiinlly transitioned himself into society. He has been employed since his release, and has
been working as a salesman at Jake’s Auto in West Haven, Connecticut for the last eleven
months. He has been successfully maintaining a residence, without the assistance of a
roommate, at the same residence since 1992.
Further, Mr. Ortale has not missed a weekly check-in phone call to his probation officer,
who has been informed of Mr. Orta1e’s motion for early termination of probation. Her office has
indicated that she does not oppose the motion.
3

Case 3:00-cr-00249-JCH Document 203 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 4
Mr. Ortale is a fifty-eight year-old man who has become a functioning, contributing
member of society. His behavior subsequent to his arrest, including his acceptance of
responsibility for his crime and his substantial cooperation with the government, demonstrates
that his conduct and the interest of justice warrant the early termination of his term of supervised
release. He has complied with every requirement of his probation and the deterrent value of this
case, if any, has been fully realized.
WHEREF ORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant Mr. Ortale’s motion for early
termination of his supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3583(e) and 18 U.S.C. §3564(c).
THE DEFENDANT, ERNEST ORTALE
By:é;4,,g,{é (¤1%\i
vid R. Gronbach
Moynahan & Minnella, LLC
141 East Main Street, P.O. Box 2242
Waterbury, Connecticut 06722-2242
Phone No. (203) 573-1411
Facsimile No. (203) 757-9313
Email Address: dgronbach@1go)g;ahai1lawti1·1n.com
Federal Bar No. ct26900
4