Court filing
Information — United States v. David Butziger (Dkt. 43, D.R.I. No. 1:20-cr-00072)
Filed April 5, 2022 in Butziger; one of 33 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-04-05 |
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island · No. 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA · Doc. 43 · 2022-04-05 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
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
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.
DAVID BUTZIGER
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CR NO. 20-072-MSM
FEBRUARY 9, 2022
PROVIDENCE, RI
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY S. McELROY
DISTRICT JUDGE
(Sentencing Hearing)
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
LEE H. VILKER, AUSA
U.S. Attorney's Office
50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
JOHN L. CALCAGNI, III, ESQ.
Law Office of John L. Calcagni
72 Clifford Street, Ste 300
Providence, RI 02903
Court Reporter:
Denise P. Veitch, RPR
One Exchange Terrace
Providence, RI 02903
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:
307
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
2
VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE
9 FEBRUARY 2022 -- 10:00 A.M.
THE COURT: Good morning. We are on the record
for a sentencing hearing in the matter of the United
States v. David Butziger, Criminal Action 20-72. I ask
counsel to identify themselves for the record,
beginning with the Government, please.
MR. VILKER: Good morning, your Honor.
Lee Vilker for the United States.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Vilker.
MR. CALCAGNI: Good morning, your Honor.
John Calcagni on behalf of Mr. Butziger.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Calcagni.
Mr. Butziger, how are you this morning? You're
muted. That's okay.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm fine, your Honor, thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. So a couple of things before
we get started. It's important that you can see and
hear everything that's going on. If for some reason
you can't or something happens, interrupt, wave your
hands around, you're not going to get in trouble for
doing that. It's important that you hear and see
everything. Okay?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Our normal procedure, as
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:
308
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
3
everybody knows, is to have all defendants physically
present in the courtroom for a sentencing hearing, and
we are today conducting this hearing on Zoom because of
the ongoing pandemic, so for the last almost two years
the court's amended general orders regarding criminal
matters have existed to allow us to conduct hearings
such as this one. During the coronavirus pandemic the
court has found that a public health crisis exists and
that it is in the best interests of defendants, their
attorneys, court staff, the United States Marshals
Service and the public that human contact be minimized
to the greatest extent possible, while at the same time
we are attempting to permit the basic functions of the
court such as sentencing hearings to go forward and to
allow people to attend.
Do you understand all of that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So do you understand most
importantly that you have the right to be physically
present in open court for this sentencing proceeding?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor, I do.
THE COURT: Okay. And that you have the right
to consult with your lawyer during the sentencing which
when you're in court happens because you're standing
next to him; but if you wish to speak to him during
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:
309
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
4
this proceeding at any time, even if it's before you
answer a question, you let me know and we'll make
arrangements for the two of you to have a confidential
communication, and there's no penalty for that,
nobody's going to get annoyed about that. Do you
understand?
THE DEFENDANT: I do. Thank you.
THE COURT: You have the right to see and hear
everything, as I said, so just let us know if there's
something that's going on that you can't see or hear.
And most importantly, what happens here today is
binding on all of the parties, the same as it would be
if we were present in court together. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you wish to waive or give up your
right to appear in person for your sentencing and
appear instead by video?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there any reason that I should
not accept the waiver, Mr. Calcagni?
MR. CALCAGNI: Not of which I'm aware, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Vilker?
MR. VILKER: Me neither, your Honor.
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:
310
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
5
THE COURT: Okay. I find that the Defendant has
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appear
physically at his sentencing and that requiring him to
be present would jeopardize his health, the public
health and safety, and the safety of those who would be
present with him during the court proceeding and during
his transportation. I find that further delay would
seriously jeopardize the interests of justice and I
accept the waiver, and we will proceed directly to
sentencing.
So Mr. Butziger, this is how we will proceed for
your sentencing hearing. First we will go over the
presentence report and deal with any objections, if
there are any. Then Mr. Vilker will make a
recommendation on behalf of the Government, and then I
will hear from your lawyer, Mr. Calcagni. Then if you
choose to say something, I will hear from you. You do
not have to say anything, and I certainly will not hold
it against you if you choose not to say anything, but
it is your opportunity if you wish to say anything
before I impose sentence, to speak to me. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Are there -- let's begin with
the presentence report. So I'm in receipt of a
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:
311
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
6
presentence report prepared by the Probation
Department. Have you reviewed this presentence report
with your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And did he answer any questions that
you had about that report?
THE DEFENDANT: He did, completely.
THE COURT: Okay. Good. Are there any
objections to the presentence report that are
outstanding?
THE DEFENDANT: Not by me, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry; I should have been clear.
Mr. Vilker.
MR. VILKER: No, your Honor. I did want to
point out to the Court that the Government did file a
motion in this case. I don't know if that's something
that you wanted to hear at this point or if it should
be on the public record.
THE COURT: Okay. We will not put that on the
public record at this time, but we can talk about it
off the record.
Mr. Calcagni, are there any objections?
MR. CALCAGNI: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Vilker, is it appropriate at the
end of your recommendation or beginning of your
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:
312
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
7
recommendation for us to go off the record?
MR. VILKER: That would be great, your Honor.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
So Mr. Butziger pled guilty to a one count
Information charging him with conspiracy to commit bank
fraud in violation of 18 USC 1349, which is a Class B
felony. The guideline range is calculated beginning on
page 7 -- 6 of the presentence report, and the base
offense level for that offense is 7, there's an agreed
intended loss that was between $250,000 and $550,000
and so that the intended loss total that's been
stipulated to in the plea agreement was $543,959, and
that calls for a 12-level enhancement. There is a
two-level increase because of the use of fraudulent
IRS forms, and that so gives us an adjusted offense
level of 21. Mr. Butziger is awarded a two-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he's
clearly demonstrated that acceptance.
And the Government, it is my understanding, is
moving for a third level because he has timely notified
them of his intent to plead guilty.
Is that correct, Mr. Vilker?
MR. VILKER: It is, your Honor.
THE COURT: So that the Court accepts that
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:
313
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
8
motion on behalf of the Government, and your 21 level
offense level is reduced by three levels to an 18. You
have no criminal history and so you are awarded zero
criminal history points and that puts you in Criminal
History Category I, and the total resulting advisory
guideline range imprisonment is 27 to 33 months.
Is there anything about that, Mr. Vilker, that
the Government disagrees with?
MR. VILKER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Calcagni?
MR. CALCAGNI: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So I will hear from the
Government. Do you want to go off the record first,
Mr. Vilker, or at the end of your argument.
MR. VILKER: I think first, your Honor. Thank
you.
THE COURT: We're going to go off the record so
I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask the clerk to remove
everybody except the Defendant, attorneys, court staff,
to the waiting room, please.
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. And Nisshy, you can
leave the interns that are with the court present.
THE CLERK: Is Mr. Rosenberg with the
U.S. Attorney's Office allowed, too?
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:
314
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
9
THE COURT: That's up to Mr. Vilker.
MR. VILKER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Pause)
(SEALED PORTION BEGINS)
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:
315
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
10
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:
316
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
11
(SEALED PORTION ENDS)
THE COURT: Okay. We are back on the record in
the United States v. David Butziger.
Mr. Vilker, I'll hear from you the Government's
recommendation.
MR. VILKER: Your Honor, the Government is
recommending a sentence of 21 months imprisonment,
which is the midpoint of the new guideline range the
Court has set, and we do so based on two of the factors
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:
317
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
12
that we think are the most relevant in 18 USC 3553 in
this case, the seriousness of the offense and the need
for deterrence.
Mr. Butziger, along with his Co-Defendant,
Mr. Staveley, decided to use the national emergency at
the very onset of the coronavirus crisis, decided to
use that emergency for his own benefit by stealing what
the government or attempting to steal what the
government was setting aside to help people who are in
desperate need for those funds. The one thing that
really became clear about Mr. Butziger from the very
beginning, all the way through to his interview with
the Probation Department in this case is he has --
although he accepts responsibility and acknowledges he
committed this crime, he continues to state how, and I
believe the exact words he used with the Probation
Department is he feels foolish because he got duped
into committing this offense; in effect pushing all the
blame for his own personal conduct onto Mr. Staveley.
Now, it's very unclear between Mr. Staveley and him who
was the first one that came up with this idea so early
in the pandemic. But even if it was Mr. Staveley's
idea originally, it really did not take much convincing
on his part to get Mr. Butziger to be an active
participant in it.
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:
318
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
13
I just want to go through some of the facts of
Mr. Butziger's own conduct that shows, you know, how
significant of a role he played. On April 11th of 2020
Mr. Butziger e-mailed Mr. Staveley, quote, I can create
a bullshit 2020-Q1 for Oakland Beach, if you want.
That's the tax form that was necessary to submit
for the application. A few days earlier than that,
April 6th, 2020, Mr. Butziger himself submitted a false
application for his own company, Dock Wireless, in the
amount of $105,381. In that application he claimed
that Dock Wireless had seven employees and a monthly
payroll in excess of $42,000. He then submitted for
that company, his own company, a fraudulent 941 tax
form claiming that that company had $126,000 in wages
during the first quarter of 2021.
On April 13th, 2020, Mr. Butziger submitted a
fraudulent Schedule C for his company, Dock Wireless,
to the bank indicating falsely that that company had
$492,000 in receipts for the year 2020 and that it had
$212,000 in labor expenses.
On April 27th of 2020, Mr. Butziger had an
undercover conversation, unbeknownst to him obviously,
with the FBI in which the FBI was posing as a bank
representative, and Mr. Butziger confirmed that all the
information he had provided on the PPP application for
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:
319
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
14
Dock Wireless was true. He indicated that he had seven
employees and that he actually provided the names and
identities of these employees, who were actually not
full-time employees.
And the reason why I'm going through all these
facts, your Honor, is I wanted to make it very clear
that this is a Defendant who took active steps in his
efforts to obtain fraudulently these PPP funds. He
wasn't someone who was being led around by the nose by
his Co-Defendant, Mr. Staveley, and was somehow duped
into committing criminal conduct. This Defendant
knowingly engaged in this scheme to defraud the PPP
program. Any argument that, you know, perhaps he was,
you know, being misled or duped by Mr. Staveley is
severely undercut by the fact that $106,000 of this
money was set to go into his own personal account for
his own personal company. He would have received
directly all of that money. So it's just disingenuous,
from the Government's perspective, to say that he's
somehow duped into criminal activity.
The harm in this case, your Honor, is the
attempted fraud on the bank and the PPP program, the
potential loss of that money -- fortunately this crime
was uncovered before anyone was paid out -- but also
the harm to the other members of the public. At that
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:
320
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
15
point in time, when this country was reeling from the
onset of the COVID crisis and businesses were being
shut down left and right, people were desperate to get
their hands on this money. There was a shortage of it
at the time, and there were many businesses that were
left waiting, desperately trying to pay their employees
and keep their businesses open that didn't have access
to those funds at that time, and this Defendant simply
didn't care about that. He wanted to get those funds
for himself, and he didn't care about all the other
people desperately waiting in line for the money.
The bottom line, your Honor, in this case is
from the Government's perspective a non-jail sentence
would be unwarranted for a Defendant who tried to
actively capitalize on a national emergency. The
message needs to go out to this Defendant and to the
public that if you're going to attempt to defraud the
government in a time of national crisis in particular,
you're going to go to jail. It's that simple.
The other factor the parties need to consider is
the relationship between this Defendant and his
Co-Defendant, Mr. Staveley. Mr. Staveley got 56 months
in prison. There is no question that Mr. Butziger
deserves less than that. Mr. Staveley had a
significant criminal history that Mr. Butziger doesn't.
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:
321
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
16
Mr. Staveley obstructed justice by fleeing;
Mr. Butziger did not. So there's no question
Mr. Butziger deserves significantly less jail time than
Mr. Staveley. The Government believes 21 months in
this case is the appropriate balance and appropriate
amount that Mr. Butziger should receive.
At the end of the day, your Honor, it's very
unclear even with the 21 month sentence how much of
that actual time this Defendant will end up serving
even if the Court were to impose that sentence. In
addition to the 15 percent of good time that would be
available to him, there's a very good chance that he
could end up being released early based on the First
Step Program, based on the ongoing efforts by the
Bureau of Prisons through the Justice Department to
release nonviolent offenders early. I recently had a
case before Judge Smith, a white-collar case in which
the defendant was sentenced to 18 months and was
released to home confinement just after four months
because there's a big push to release nonviolent
offenders, to lower incarceration rates. All this is
saying it's very unclear how much time Mr. Butziger
would end up serving no matter what sentence the Court
imposes, but at the end of the day we think a message
needs to go out that you're going to be sentenced to
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:
322
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
17
jail if you try to take advantage of the government in
a time of national emergency.
So for those reasons, the Government is
recommending a sentence in the middle of this guideline
range of 21 months imprisonment.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Vilker.
Mr. Calcagni.
MR. CALCAGNI: Your Honor, may I request a
breakout room, please.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CALCAGNI: Thank you.
THE COURT: You're welcome.
THE CLERK: One moment.
(Defendant and counsel exit proceedings)
THE CLERK: Your Honor, I'm going to stop the
recording for now and then turn it back on.
THE COURT: Yes. That's fine.
(Pause)
(Defendant and counsel rejoin proceedings)
THE COURT: Mr. Calcagni, did you have enough
time?
MR. CALCAGNI: Yes, I did, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CALCAGNI: Thank you. May I have the
opportunity to speak at this time?
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:
323
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
18
THE COURT: Of course.
MR. CALCAGNI: Thank you. First, your Honor,
respectfully I ask the Court today when imposing
whatever sentence it deems to be just and appropriate,
to determine the sentence based upon the written
submissions of the parties and the facts and
circumstances that you have before you this morning and
not on any speculation or conjecture as to how long of
that sentence to be imposed Mr. Butziger may serve or
under what or when conditions he may be released from
BOP. While Mr. Vilker does cite programs that are
available in the BOP that authorize early release of
inmates, I don't think that any of us have enough
knowledge or information about those programs or
Mr. Butziger to know whether or not he would benefit
from them if he were to be incarcerated. So I just
wanted to make that comment. I understood that
Mr. Vilker was referencing to the Court that even if
you thought that maybe his sentencing recommendation
was a little on the high side, he might not serve all
that time at the BOP; so I just thought it was
appropriate to bring that up.
The second thing I wanted to bring up was
Mr. Vilker's reference to Mr. Butziger's comment as set
forth in the presentence report about him being duped.
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:
324
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
19
I took that comment head on in my written submission, I
think it's at page four, and it's important for the
Court to know that Mr. Butziger fully accepts
responsibility for his actions here, and I think the
Government knows that or it wouldn't have filed the
motion that it filed earlier.
When Mr. Butziger referenced being duped by
Mr. Staveley or by the circumstances, he was really
referring to two things: The first being that Staveley
introduced him to the scheme, and that's always been
his position from the very beginning, and secondly,
that Mr. Butziger and his family were also victimized
by Mr. Staveley, who falsified real estate transaction
documents, essentially taking a piece of property from
them that he had entered into a purchase and sales
agreement to acquire but never rendered any payment on.
And that was also brought to the Government's attention
at some point during the early stages of this case, and
there's currently, although I'm not personally
involved, there's currently a pending civil lawsuit
where Mr. Butziger and his family are represented.
They're plaintiffs in an action against Mr. Staveley to
reconvey this land that belonged to their family and
had been in their family for generations when
Mr. Staveley and others falsified and forged signatures
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:
325
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
20
essentially to convey to Staveley a piece of property
that he never lawfully acquired. And that's what that
was all about, and I made reference to it in my
sentence memo so I thought it would be appropriate to
provide you with that context.
Your Honor, listen, Mr. Butziger made some
serious bad judgment in this case that brings him
before the Court, and if you look at the volume and the
quality of the written sentencing submission I hope you
can reach the conclusion that Mr. Butziger's actions in
this case are entirely inconsistent with his overall
character. He has no criminal history. He comes from
a very loving and supportive family. He's an educated
man. He has had successful business interests, and
Mr. Butziger made an absolute, absolute misstep by
choosing to get involved in this fraud scheme.
And he's already suffered greatly. Mr. Butziger
has always enjoyed a very favorable reputation in this
community. He's lost friends over it. His businesses
have lost customers over it, and he has lost various
federal benefits and privileges in the form of licenses
that allow his business to provide services to federal
agencies on secure facilities like Coast Guard bases,
Navy bases and the like.
For some people who come before this Court,
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:
326
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
21
having a federal conviction isn't such a big deal to
them, but to Mr. Butziger it's everything. The federal
conviction that he has and will sustain from this case
is going to be a true scarlet letter that is going to
jeopardize many future opportunities, has already
adversely impacted his current circumstances, and that
experience alone has humbled this man who I truly
believe is deeply remorseful for his actions and by
objective circumstances has attempted to do everything
he can since his arrest to make good on it, to show
everyone that he's learned, that he can be
rehabilitated, and that he has done everything he can
to mitigate that conduct.
Of course sending him to BOP is an option that's
available here today, one that the Government, perhaps
Probation are advocating for, but I would suggest to
the Court a period of home detention would serve the
same interests. To incarcerate Mr. Butziger would
ultimately cause the dissolution of the small business
that he owns and operates in my estimation would cause
him to further regress than has already been inflicted.
So I would suggest to the Court when you look to
the totality of the circumstances of this Defendant and
the conduct that he's engaged in and his post-arrest
conduct, I would implore the Court to not impose a BOP
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:
327
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
22
sentence here today.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Calcagni.
Mr. Butziger, this is the opportunity for you to
speak to the Court if there's anything you would like
to say before I impose sentence.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor, I would just
like to make one statement.
THE COURT: Sure.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I am deeply sorry,
filled with remorse and deeply ashamed of my actions.
I'm also mostly sorry to my family and friends for the
embarrassment, shame and hardship my actions caused
them. I know it will take a long time to rebuild the
trust I've shattered, but I am determined. I want to
ask your forgiveness for my actions, and I hope you can
find it in your hearts to forgive me.
I wish to begin rebuilding the trust I have
broken and want to continue to do what I've been doing
since my egregious error in judgement so many months
ago. I understand what caused me to consider this
course of action, and I know it will never happen
again. There was no excuse for my actions. I accept
full responsibility for what I've done. I've worked
hard my entire life, and until this incident I have
never been in trouble with the law.
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:
328
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
23
My family and friends mean everything to me, and
I have let them down. I recognize I have been a bad
role model through my conduct. I have spent my life
helping others and using my expertise to make the
public safer. I wish to continue this as soon as
possible and to continue supporting the advancement of
the students to achieve their goals. Thank you, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Butziger.
Before I impose a sentence I'd like to just
explain some of the factors that the Court needs to
take into account in determining the appropriate
sentence in any case. Under 18 USC 3553 the Court
needs to consider the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the need for the sentence to serve various
purposes of sentencing as well as the kinds of
sentences available, the advisory sentencing guidelines
and any pertinent policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission, as well as the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants
with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct. So I need to take each of those into
effect. And I consider your attorney's remarks, your
own remarks, and the remarks and recommendation of
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:
329
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
24
counsel for the Government.
Under Section 3553 the Court must impose a
sentence that is sufficient but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.
And so there's a balancing act, essentially,
Mr. Butziger, and I'm going to go through those
purposes and address them one at a time.
The deterrence is the first one, and it's both
specific deterrence of you, but it's also general
deterrence of the public; and while you have no prior
criminal record, it's important that the Court take
into account the effect of a sentence on other members
of the public who might be tempted to attempt the same
amount -- the same type of offense, and so there is
some benefit in sentencing you for general deterrence
purposes, but I don't think for specific deterrence
there's any need for incarceration.
One of the things I take into account is the
protection of the public, and I don't believe that the
public is in danger from you; you're 53 years old and
you have not committed prior criminal acts.
Your personal circumstances and the need for any
rehabilitation, the circumstances of this offense are
despicable. They just are. We were in the middle of a
crisis and you and Mr. Staveley sought to take
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:
330
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
25
advantage of that for your own gain. But this is your
first offense and you have no history of fraud, and
while perhaps your wording of "duped" was not the
appropriate wording, I understand what you and your
attorney are saying is that you were sort of led down
the garden path by Mr. Staveley, who does have a
history of fraud and did have a different approach to
being caught by federal authorities than you did. And
so you're responsible for your own conduct, you weren't
tricked in any way, but you made bad decisions based on
what I have no trouble believing was a scheme that
wasn't entirely of your own construction.
The last sort of purpose of sentencing that I
need to consider is the need for punishment, and so
serious fraud requires a loss of liberty. But given
your age, your lack of prior criminal record and your
acceptance of responsibility, the fact that this was
the first time that you have done anything like this,
as well as the fact that you have accepted
responsibility, you are a productive member of society,
you, as I understand it, participate in helping your
parents who are elderly, I don't think that actual
physical incarceration makes sense in your case.
The sentence disparity with Mr. Staveley, who
did receive a significant sentence given the -- his
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:
331
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
sentence, I don't think that the disparity between his
sentence and not incarcerating you is significant given
the fact that he had a significant history of prior
fraud, he did not accept responsibility in the way that
you did, he fled the jurisdiction and blamed others for
his fleeing of the jurisdiction, and even at his
sentencing he blamed the banks for the crime that he
had committed.
So I think the appropriate sentence in this case
is home detention, and I think that it's appropriate to
sentence you to supervised release of three years, with
the first six months in home detention with radio
frequency monitoring, which means that you'll be
restricted to your residence every day, and your
exceptions to detention would only be employment,
education, religious services, medical treatment,
substance abuse or mental health treatment, as well as
attorneys visits, court appearances, court obligations,
and activities pre-approved by the Probation Office.
And you shall pay all or part of the cost of monitoring
based on your ability to pay, which will also be
determined by the probation officer.
There's no restitution in your case, but I am
going to impose a fine, Mr. Butziger. I think that a
fine might send a more directed message to you than
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:
332
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
27
would anything else, so I'm imposing a $5,000 fine in
this case and I am imposing a special assessment of
$100.
In addition to the standard conditions of
probation, I am requiring you to provide all access to
all financial information requested by the supervising
probation officer, including, but not limited to,
copies of all of your federal and state income tax
returns, and all of your tax returns must be filed in a
timely manner. You are not to open any new lines of
credit, which include leasing any vehicle or other
property, or using any existing credit resources
without the prior approval of the supervising probation
officer until you satisfy all of your financial
obligations with the Court. You are to maintain one
personal checking account and one business checking
account, and all of your income, monetary gains, or
other pecuniary proceeds will be deposited into the
business account. Your personal account will be used
for payment of all personal expenses. Records of all
other bank accounts including business accounts are to
be disclosed to your supervising probation officer upon
request. You will not transfer, sell, give away, or
otherwise convey any asset with a fair market value in
excess of a thousand dollars without the approval of
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:
333
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
28
your supervising probation officer until all of your
financial obligations are satisfied, court obligations
are satisfied, and you will not enter into any gambling
establishment without the probation of the United
States -- permission of the probation officer for the
court.
You are to cooperate with the United States
Probation Office in the investigation and approval of
any position of self-employment, including any
independent entrepreneurial or freelance employment or
business activity. I believe that that encompasses all
of the requirements of sentencing.
You did have the right to appeal your conviction
or sentence, but waived or gave up that right should
the sentence that this Court imposed be within or below
the advisory guideline range. This sentence is below
the advisory guideline range, and so you have waived or
given up your right to appeal. If you think that I am
incorrect about this you need to speak to Mr. Calcagni
because any appeal needs to be filed within 14 days.
Is there anything further?
MR. VILKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Picozzi, would you like
Mr. Butziger to stay on?
THE PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, yes, just for a
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:
334
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
29
moment, your Honor. But I would also like to just make
certain that the Court was imposing a time-served
sentence.
THE COURT: I apologize.
THE PROBATION OFFICER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: So the sentence should actually be
time served, as you were arrested and detained for a
period of time, and with three years of supervised
release, the first six months to be served in home
detention, as I outlined earlier.
MR. CALCAGNI: Your Honor, when will the home
detention begin? Will that begin today?
THE COURT: I believe that's why you need to
stay on, you and your client should stay on and talk to
Ms. Picozzi about that.
MR. CALCAGNI: Very well. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything further
from the Government?
MR. VILKER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Vilker.
Mr. Calcagni, from the Defendant?
MR. CALCAGNI: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Butziger, I wish you good luck.
Take the requirements of probation seriously because
you won't be given another opportunity to get away
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:
335
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
30
without being incarcerated, okay?
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Everyone have a good
day.
MR. CALCAGNI: You, too. Thank you.
(Adjourned)
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:
336
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
31
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Denise P. Veitch, RPR, do hereby certify
that the foregoing pages are a true and accurate
transcription of my stenographic notes in the
above-entitled case.
/s/ Denise P. Veitch_
Denise P. Veitch, RPR
Federal Official Court Reporter
March 17, 2022
Date
Case 1:20-cr-00072-MSM-LDA Document 43 Filed 04/05/22 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:
337File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.rid.49647.43.0.pdf
- Size
- 171,843 bytes
- SHA-256
- e18a21e466769a5f36e2d45a6d8f6b24766d7aa0dc493a019b9cc01d4a76cb8f
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.rid.49647.43.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)