Free Sentencing Memorandum - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona RACHEL C. HERNANDEZ Arizona State Bar No. 016543 GARY M. RESTAINO Arizona State Bar No. 017450 Assistant U.S. Attorneys Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected] [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America CR-04-820-PHX-FJM Plaintiff, v. Harvey L. Sloniker, Jr., Defendant. The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, submits this memorandum in response to defendant's sentencing memorandum and for the Court's consideration at sentencing. In his sentencing memorandum, defendant argues that no fine should be imposed, nor restitution ordered in light of the fact that monies and assets have been previously seized in this case. Defendant claims that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has seized $2 million in assets. The following calculations are provided for the Court's information and use in determining proper financial penalties in this case. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) seized various items of personal property from defendant which had a liquidated total of $94,588.00. The items seized that make up this total include a 2000 Lincoln Navigator, 1998 Ford Expedition, 4 all-terrain vehicles, a speed boat and $4,138 in U.S. currency. UNITED STATES' SUPPLEMENTAL SENTENCING MEMORANDUM RE: FINES AND FORFEITURE

Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM

Document 235

Filed 04/04/2006

Page 1 of 2

1

In its wholly separate civil action, the FTC seized $537,941.00 from bank accounts

2 belonging to defendant. After creditors were paid, and receiver expenses deducted, $101,945.80 3 was remitted to the FTC. (See Exhibit 1, Receiver's Final Accounting, CV 02-1256-PHX-RCB.) 4 Defendant's claim of a $2 million seizure is not supported by the facts. Restitution and a

5 fine are warranted in this case. The government stands by its previous recommendation with 6 regard to restitution. As noted in the government's sentencing memorandum, the

7 recommendation with regard to a fine is in contemplation of defendant's agreement to abandon 8 the remaining equipment seized during the execution of the search warrants. Should defendant 9 not agree to abandon his interest in those items, the government may recommend a greater fine 10 at sentencing. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the 21 Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Bruce Blumberg, Jeanette Alvarado, Ivan Mathew, 22 Tom Hoidal, Greg Parzych and Michael Bresnehan. 20 23 24 25 26 27 28
2

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of April, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ Rachel C. Hernandez RACHEL C. HERNANDEZ GARY M. RESTAINO Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM

Document 235

Filed 04/04/2006

Page 2 of 2