SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by Daniela Rendon — USA v. RENDON (Dkt. 56)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:23-cr-20036-KMM · Doc. 56 · 2023-08-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No.: 1:23-cr-20036-KMM  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DANIELA RENDON, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/ 
 
DEFENDANT DANIELA RENDON’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
Defendant DANIELA RENDON, by and through the undersigned counsel, 
hereby submits this Sentencing Memorandum and the attached exhibits for this 
Honorable Court’s consideration. Ms. Rendon respectfully asks this Court to grant 
a downward variance from her advisory sentencing guidelines and impose a sentence 
of five years’ probation based on the factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ms. 
Rendon submits that a five-year probationary term is warranted under the 
circumstances of this case and sufficient for satisfying the sentencing purposes set 
forth in § 3553(a). 
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
On April 25, 2023, Ms. Rendon pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 pursuant to a written plea agreement with the 
Government. The factual circumstances of the offense and the terms of the written 
plea agreement are sufficiently discussed in Ms. Rendon’s Presentence Investigation 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 1 of 14

2 
Report (PSR) (Doc. 48). Ms. Rendon’s sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for 
August 17, 2023. Ms. Rendon respectfully asks this Court to consider this 
memorandum and attached exhibits in support of her request for a downward 
variance sentence of five years’ probation. 
II. SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATION 
Ms. Rendon’s PSR calculates her total offense level as a level 22 with a 
criminal history category of I (Ms. Rendon has no prior criminal history). As a result, 
Ms. Rendon is facing an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 41 to 51 months of 
imprisonment. There are no unresolved objections. There is no minimum mandatory 
penalty for Ms. Rendon’s offense, and the statutory maximum is 20 years’ 
imprisonment.  
III. REQUEST FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE  
For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant a downward variance 
sentence based on Ms. Rendon’s extraordinary acceptance of responsibility and 
post-arrest rehabilitative efforts, as well as other relevant factors of 18 U.S.C. § 
3553(a). In light of Ms. Rendon’s extraordinary acceptance of responsibility, 
commitment to rehabilitation, overwhelming remorse, dedication to her family and 
children, and other redeeming character traits, Ms. Rendon respectfully requests that 
this Court impose a below-guidelines sentence of five-years’ probation, which is 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 2 of 14

3 
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the requirements of 18 
U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
a) The Post-Booker Sentencing Framework 
In the wake of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only. Judges now have the power to impose 
sentences that are no greater than necessary to satisfy the statutory purposes of 
sentencing, to consider all of the characteristics of the offender and circumstances 
of the offense, and to reject advisory guidelines that are not based on national 
sentencing data and empirical research. See Booker, 543 U.S. 220; Rita v. United 
States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007); 
Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007).   
A district court “should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly 
calculating the applicable Guidelines range,” but the court “may not presume that 
the Guidelines range is reasonable.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007) 
(emphasis added). A district court has the discretion to conclude that the resulting 
advisory range “yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s 
purposes, even in a mine-run case.”  Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 575 (2007).  Though 
this Court is required to consider the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) set forth 
below, it need not accept the “utter travesty of justice that sometimes results from 
the Guidelines’ fetish with abstract arithmetic.” United States v. Adelson, 441 F. 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 3 of 14

4 
Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).  
Put differently, after Booker, this Court is unencumbered in its ability “to 
consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study 
in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and 
the punishment to ensue.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 53 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 
U.S. 81 (1996)). In fact, the use of the Guidelines in any manner other than an 
advisory function violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. Booker, 543 
U.S. at 244-45 (Part Two, Breyer, J.). 
b) This Court should grant a downward variance sentence based on Ms. 
Rendon’s extraordinary acceptance of responsibility and post-arrest 
rehabilitative efforts. 
 
When fashioning a sentence, a district court may consider relevant post-
offense conduct.  See Gall, 552 U.S. at 600.  Thus, a sentencing court can grant a 
downward variance in cases of “extraordinary” acceptance of responsibility, even 
where a defendant has already received credit for acceptance of responsibility 
pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1.  See E.g., United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 
1095 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (district court properly imposed a below-guidelines sentence 
of probation in part because defendant “cooperated with authorities and accepted 
responsibility for his crimes to an extraordinary degree”); United States v. Brown, 
985 F.2d 478, 482-83 (9th Cir. 1993) (sentencing court can depart downward from 
the guidelines range if it determines that the two-point reduction did not adequately 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 4 of 14

5 
reflect acceptance of responsibility); United States v. Milne,  384 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 
1312 (E.D. Wis. 2005). 
For instance, in United States v. Milne, a bank fraud case, the district court 
recognized that Sentencing Commission promulgated USSG § 5K2.0(d)(2) to 
prohibit downward departures for acceptance of responsibility beyond those 
available under USSG § 3E1.1.  Id.  Nevertheless, the court concluded that an 
additional downward variance was warranted on the facts of the case and reasoned 
as follows: 
Where appropriate, courts may grant additional consideration to 
defendants who demonstrate acceptance beyond that necessary to 
obtain a two or three level reduction under § 3E1.1.  This is so because 
such conduct bears directly on their character, § 3553(a)(1), and on how 
severe a sentence is necessary to provide deterrence and punishment, § 
3553(a)(2).  Further, courts should encourage offenders to mitigate 
their misconduct voluntarily, whether by admitting it, paying restitution 
or making efforts to address substance abuse, mental health or other 
problems that contributed to it. 
 
Id. at 1312. 
Other courts have reached similar conclusions.  United States v. Smith, 311 F. 
Supp. 2d 801 (E.D. Wis. 2004)  (two-level downward departure granted even though 
defendant also received offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, 
where defendant demonstrated self-improvement, fundamental change in attitude, 
and complete withdrawal from criminal drug distribution lifestyle in three years 
before he was arrested and before he knew he was under investigation); see also 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 5 of 14

6 
United States v. Kim, 364 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2004) (payment of $280,000 
restitution by defendants, a husband and wife, after they pled guilty was 
extraordinary enough to justify downward departure from 24 months to probation 
and home detention because defendants’ conduct demonstrated their sincere remorse 
and acceptance of responsibility). 
In the instant case, Ms. Rendon has expressed sincere remorse for her criminal 
conduct and the long-reaching effects that it had on society during a time of 
unprecedented hardship. In her written statement to the Court, Ms. Rendon reflects 
on how her covid-relief fraud directly affected struggling businesses and employees 
by removing an opportunity for them to seek legitimately needed assistance. See 
Exhibit 1, Statement of Daniela Rendon. She further expressed her intention to atone 
for her crime and repay society for the harm she caused . Id.  
Ms. Rendon has undertaken substantial efforts to thoroughly understand the 
impact of her crime and how it contributed to the various hardships that everyday 
hardworking Americans endured during the Covid-19 pandemic. Ms. Rendon spent 
considerable time researching and educating herself on the pandemic’s effects on 
society as well as the intended purpose of Covid-19 economic relief programs. Ms. 
Rendon used this information to prepare an extensive “thesis” that examines the 
impact of Covid-19 and economic relief fraud on society. See Exhibit 2, Impact of 
Covid-19 by Daniela Rendon. However, the most significant aspect of Ms. Rendon’s 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 6 of 14

7 
rehabilitative efforts is the comprehensive plan that she developed to remedy the 
harm she caused to society. Ms. Rendon’s thesis discusses the plan in detail, and it 
is summarized as follows:  
In envisioning a brighter future, I have developed a comprehensive plan 
that involves non-profit organizations and engages charities to make a 
positive impact during economic and natural disasters. As a real estate 
agent passionate about community service, I aim to channel my skills 
toward helping families and businesses affected by crises. 
 
This plan focuses on three key areas: disaster preparedness and 
response, mental health support, and divorce counseling. By leveraging 
data-driven strategies, I hope to create a resilient and supportive 
community that can weather the storms of life. 
 
During times of economic distress and natural disasters, I will actively 
contribute to non-profit organizations that provide immediate 
assistance to struggling small businesses and families. Using my real 
estate experience, I aim to help these businesses find affordable and 
sustainable solutions to get back on their feet. Additionally, I will work 
closely with these organizations to identify long-term support 
mechanisms to prevent similar hardships in the future. 
 
Id. at 26.  
 
 
Ms. Rendon undertook extensive efforts to atone for her crime and has shown 
genuine remorse. It is apparent from her written statement and thesis that Ms. 
Rendon fully realizes that her offense was not a victimless crime against the 
government, but one committed against everyday Americans. Ms. Rendon’s post-
arrest efforts to rehabilitate herself are a testament to her character and suggests that 
she is unlikely to engage in future criminal behavior. Because Ms. Rendon’s 
advisory sentencing guidelines calculation does not account for this uncommon and 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 7 of 14

8 
substantial degree of acceptance of responsibility, this Court should grant a 
downward variance. 
c) The factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh in favor of a downward 
variance from the Sentencing Guidelines Range. 
 
Congress has identified four “purposes” of sentencing: punishment, 
deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). To achieve 
these ends, § 3553(a) requires sentencing courts to consider not only the advisory 
Guidelines range, but also the facts of a specific case through the lens of seven 
factors, including:  
1. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 
characteristics of the defendant; 
 
2. 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 for the offense; 
b. to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 
c. to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; 
and 
d. to provide the defendant with needed educational or 
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 
treatment in the most effective manner; 
 
3. The kinds of sentences available; 
 
4. The kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established . . .; 
 
5. Any pertinent [Sentencing Commission] policy statement . . .; 
 
6. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 
similar conduct; and 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 8 of 14

9 
 
7.  The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 
 
§ 3553(a)(1)-(7).   
The relevant statutory factors of § 3553(a), when applied to Ms. Rendon’s 
case, weigh in favor of a downward variance from her advisory sentencing 
guidelines range. 
The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense 
 
Ms. Rendon pled guilty to a serious offense. The severity and extent of her 
crime cannot be overstated, and she makes no attempt at excusing or minimizing her 
crime. This Court must consider the nature of Ms. Rendon’s crime. However, this 
Court must also consider a defendant’s personal history and redeeming 
characteristics when fashioning its sentence. 
The History and Characteristics of Ms. Rendon 
As Judge Rakoff noted in United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506, 513-
14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), the importance of considering a defendant’s redeeming 
characteristics reaches its zenith at the moment the court determines the sentence to 
be imposed. Examining Ms. Rendon’s history and characteristics reveals a life 
dedicated to serving her family and devotion to her children. See Letters of Support, 
attached as composite Exhibit 3. 
Ms. Rendon’s letters of support all consistently describe or reference her as 
an individual who is devoted to her family. Ms. Rendon’s older sister, Paula Rendon, 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 9 of 14

10 
writes the following about her sister: 
As a wife, Daniela is devoted to her home, her husband, and her 
children. With God as her guiding light, she has built a beautiful 
household based on respect, love, and reverence. Moreover, Daniela 
instills in her children the values of respect and kindness, ensuring they 
grow into respectful individuals. 
 
See Ex. 3, Letter from Paula Rendon.  
Ms. Rendon’s sister-in-law, Lady-Patricia Reyes, similarly described Ms. 
Rendon’s dedication to her family: 
As a mother, she places a high value on her kids' health and happiness. 
She is actively involved in ensuring that her kids have a decent 
education and are interested in extracurricular activities. She places a 
strong emphasis on family and instills these values in the kids. She (the 
family as a whole) spent every Thanksgiving with us up until last year. 
Also, my niece and nephew spent 3 weeks with me (us) last summer 
and attended a summer camp (in Massachusetts), they were able to 
engage with other kids and learn other cultures. 
  
See Ex. 3, Letter from Lady Patricia Reyes; see also Ex. 3, Letter from Veronica 
Vallarino-Reyes (“As a mother, she demonstrates unwavering dedication to her 
children. I have seen her consistently prioritize their well-being, providing them with 
a nurturing and supportive environment. Her decision-making skills and 
involvement in their education and extracurricular activities are commendable.”).  
The letters of support also describe Ms. Rendon’s integrity and positive 
character traits. See Ex. 3, Letter from Paula Rendon (“While Daniela may have 
made mistakes against her nation, she is by no means a danger to humanity. Her 
heart is filled with love, respect, and understanding for others . . .”); see also Ex. 3, 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 10 of 14

11 
Letter from Veronica Vallarino-Reyes (“Daniela Rendon is a person of impeccable 
character, integrity . . .”); see also Ex. 1, Letter from Mabel Pena (“I can confirm 
that in the time I have known her, Daniela has been a reliable, trustworthy and decent 
person.”). 
In determining Ms. Rendon’s sentence, this Court should consider her 
unwavering commitment to her family, particularly her dedication to her children, 
and her positive character traits described in her letters of support. These 
circumstances warrant a downward variance from her applicable sentencing 
guidelines range. 
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 for the offense 
 
The Court must impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense, 
promotes respect for law and affords adequate deterrence to protect the public from 
similar conduct on the part of others.  18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ms. Rendon respectfully 
submits that a sentence of five-years’ probation is significant and satisfies these 
requirements under the circumstances of this case. 
(b) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct 
Although § 3553(a) requires the Court to consider the need for deterrence, 
studies have shown that there is little to no evidence that supports the notion that a 
harsher sentence would have any deterrent effect. See David Weisburd et al., Specific 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 11 of 14

12 
Deterrence in a Sample of Offenders Convicted of White Collar Crimes, 33 
CRIMINOLOGY 587 (1995); Zvi D. Gabbay, Exploring the Limits of the Restorative 
Justice Paradigm: Restorative Justice and White Collar Crime, 8 CARDOZO J. 
CONFLICT RESOL. 421, 448-49 (2007) (“[T]here is no decisive evidence to support 
the conclusion that harsh sentences actually have a general and specific deterrent 
effect on potential white-collar offenders.”).  Indeed, these studies demonstrate that 
the deterrent effect of these ever-longer sentences for white collar crime has been 
minimal.  Id.   
 
The theory of general deterrence is based on the flawed premise that lengthy 
prison sentences deter crime. Over the years, this flawed premise has resulted in the 
mass incarceration of individuals in the United States. Dr. Oliver Roeder et 
al., What Caused the Crime Decline?, Brennan Center for Just., 22-23 (Feb. 12, 
2015), available at https://www.brennancenter. org/publication/what-caused-crime-
decline. Despite this mass incarceration, studies have shown no correlation between 
punishment and reductions in crime. See id. Finally, in imposing “just punishment” 
for an offense, the Court should not disregard the additional penalties and hardships 
that will accompany a felony conviction. 
Ms. Rendon submits that a sentence of imprisonment is unnecessary, as the 
foregoing information suggests that it would have not have any deterring effect on 
crime.  
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 12 of 14

13 
(c) To protect the public from further crimes of the defendant 
Ms. Rendon poses a low risk of recidivism based on her lack of prior criminal 
history, genuine remorse, post-arrest rehabilitative efforts, and absence of incidents 
while on supervised pretrial release. As such, a sentence of incarceration is 
unnecessary and would not have any greater specific deterrence effect. 
The Need to Provide Restitution to Any Victims of the Offense. 
  
Restitution will be ordered and owed to the Small Business Administration in 
the amount of $198,990. Ms. Rendon has indicated that she will diligently make 
restitution payments and attempt to pay the amount off as quickly as she can. A 
probationary sentence will enable Ms. Rendon to prioritize paying off this 
restitution. 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing reasons, Ms. Rendon respectfully requests that this 
Court grant a downward variance and impose a sentence of five years’ probation, 
which is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the requirements 
of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Asad Ali 
Asad Ali, Esq. 
Florida Bar No. 111887 
Robert I. Mandell, Esq. 
Florida Bar No. 15484 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 13 of 14

14 
Mandell Law, P.A. 
189 S. Orange Ave., Ste. 810 
Orlando, FL 32801 
Phone: (407) 956-1180 
aali@fightforyou.org 
rmandell@fightforyou.org 
Attorneys for Defendant 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on July 12, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with 
the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of 
Electronic Filing to all parties in this case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Asad Ali 
Asad Ali, Esq. 
Florida Bar No. 111887 
 
Case 1:23-cr-20036-KMM   Document 56   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2023   Page 14 of 14

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.627608.56.0.pdf

Size

222,553 bytes

SHA-256

62086f4cc8638bff2345ff2886cd1b974b34789fb3ccd3acd6c2098bec3d17ea

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.627608.56.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)