Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00215-RPM

Document 275

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 01-cr-00215-RPM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. DEBORAH ELLEN HUDDY, Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DEBORAH ELLEN HUDDY'S MOTION OF ELIGIBILITY TO TERMINATE CURRENT SUPERVISED RELEASE

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Thomas M. O'Rourke, submits the following response in opposition to the Motion of Eligibility to Terminate Current Supervised Release, which the defendant Deborah Ellen Huddy filed on November 26, 2007. Doc. 274. 1. After a jury found the defendant guilty of 41 counts of mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, this court sentenced her to a term of imprisonment of 46 months and a three-year term of supervised release and ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $365,145.00. The defendant's term of supervised release began just over a year ago, on November 13, 2006. 2. The present motion is a renewed effort by the defendant to be freed from supervision. Earlier this year, she filed a Motion to Terminate Current Supervised Release. Doc. 267. The court denied that motion on May 1, 2007. Doc. 271.

Case 1:01-cr-00215-RPM

Document 275

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 2 of 4

3. The government objects to the present motion for the following reasons: a. The court may terminate a term of supervised release early only when "warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Before releasing a defendant from supervision, the court must consider certain factors, which are set out in Section 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). b. One of the factors is "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The defendant in this case was convicted at trial because she devised and executed a fairly sophisticated scheme to defraud a company out of more than $350,000. It was not her first felony conviction; she earlier had been convicted in this court in Criminal Case No. 92-CR-16. c. Another factor is "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The co-defendant in this case, Craig Huddy, filed a motion similar to the present one on October 22, 2007. Doc. 272. Judge Matsch denied that motion one day later. Doc. 273. d. The governing statute also instructs the court to consider "the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). The probation officer reports that the defendant has been making monthly restitution payments of $200, twice the amount ordered by the court, but she has not yet made full restitution. This suggests that continued supervision is appropriate. United States v. Walters, 129 Fed.Appx. 319, 320 (7th Cir. 2005).

2

Case 1:01-cr-00215-RPM

Document 275

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 3 of 4

e. The defendant's other assertions are: (1) her conduct while on supervised release has been "exemplary," (2) she "made voluntary court payments" during the time she was incarcerated, (3) she has maintained employment and has cared for her family, and (4) she has remorse. She provided no explanation as to what she means by "court payments," but in any event the motion reflects nothing extraordinary and no changed circumstances warranting early termination. See United States v. Campbell, 2006 WL 3925588 *1 (6th Cir. July 25, 2006). 4. The government submits that the court can deny the motion without holding a hearing. A hearing is required only when the court modifies conditions of release. Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 32.1(c)(1). But "[a] refusal to terminate supervised release does not constitute a modification of the term of supervised release." United States v. Reagan, 162 Fed.Appx. 912, 913 (11th Cir. 2006 (per curiam). Respectfully submitted, TROY A. EID United States Attorney By: s/ Thomas M. O'Rourke THOMAS M. O'ROURKE Assistant U.S. Attorney 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: 303-454-0209 FAX: 303-454-0402 E-mail: thomas.o'[email protected] Attorney for the United States

3

Case 1:01-cr-00215-RPM

Document 275

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 4th day of December 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DEBORAH ELLEN HUDDY'S MOTION OF ELIGIBILITY TO TERMINATE CURRENT SUPERVISED RELEASE with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Copies of the foregoing were mailed to: Deborah Ellen Huddy 9370 Morning Glory Lane Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80130 Garrett Pfalmer U.S. Probation Department 1929 Stout Street, Suite C-120 Denver, Colorado 80294-0101

s/ Charlotte A. Seaton CHARLOTTE A. SEATON Legal Assistant U.S. Attorney's Office 1225 17th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303-454-0244 Fax: 303-454-0402 [email protected]