Sentencing Statement by Dejane Reaniece Lattany — USA v. Lattany (Dkt. 19, D. Colo.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW · Doc. 19 · 2023-07-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 
 
Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00074-NYW 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  DEJANE REANIECE LATTANY, 
 
 
Defendant, 
 
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
As set forth in the Plea Agreement, the Defendant, Ms. Lattany, is pleading guilty to a 
single-count Information, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343 (wire fraud). The maximum 
sentence for such a violation is not more than 20 years of imprisonment; a fine of not more than 
the greater of $250,000 or twice the gain or loss from the offense, or both; not more than 3 years 
of supervised release; a $100 mandatory victim’s fund assessment fee; plus restitution in an 
amount to be determined at the time of sentencing. 
The parties agreed that, “[a]s to sentencing, the government agrees to recommend a 
sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range, as calculated by the Court. The defendant is free 
to file a motion for a variance under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).” 
Finally, the parties agreed on their estimate of the advisory guideline range called for by 
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. With respect to Ms. Lattany’s sentence, the parties 
agreed as set forth below: 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 19     filed 07/27/23     USDC Colorado     pg 1
of 4

2 
 
A. 
The base guideline is § 2B1.1, with a base offense level of 7.  
§ 2B1.1(a)(1). 
B. 
An 18-level increase applies because the loss was more than $3,500,000 
but less than $9,500,000.  §2B1.1(b)(1)(J). 
C.  
A 2-level increase applies because the defendant derived more than 
$1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institution as a 
result of the offense.  § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A).   
D. 
The adjusted offense level is 27.   
E. 
The defendant should receive a 3-level downward adjustment for timely 
acceptance of responsibility.  The resulting total offense level is 24.  
§§ 3E1.1(a)–(b). 
F. 
The parties understand that the defendant’s criminal history computation 
is tentative.  The criminal history category is determined by the Court 
based on the defendant’s prior convictions.  Based on information 
currently available to the parties, it is estimated that the defendant’s 
criminal history category would be I. 
G. 
The career offender/criminal livelihood/armed career criminal adjustments 
would not apply.  
H. 
The advisory guideline range resulting from these calculations is 51–63 
months.  However, in order to be as accurate as possible, with the criminal 
history category undetermined at this time, the offense level(s) estimated 
above could conceivably result in a range from 51 months (bottom of 
Category I) to 125 months (top of Category VI).  The guideline range 
would not exceed, in any case, the statutory maximum applicable to the 
count of conviction. 
 
 
Accordingly, based on the parties’ agreement, the range is 51 to 63 months, and the 
United States has agreed to recommend a sentence at the bottom of that range, i.e., 51 months, 
and further agreed that Ms. Lattany may argue for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3553. A 
district court is given due deference to deviate from the Guidelines if it finds that “the §3553(a) 
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” United States v. Huckins, 529 F.3d 1312, 
1317 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 
 
The factors to be considered under §3553 include: 
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics 
of the defendant; 
(2) the need for the sentence imposed- 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 19     filed 07/27/23     USDC Colorado     pg 2
of 4

3 
 
(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 for- 
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable 
category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines … 
(5) any pertinent policy statement … 
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with 
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and 
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 
 
 
In this case, Ms. Lattany requests that the Court impose a reduced sentence of 45 months 
pursuant to subsection (1), the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 
characteristics of the defendant. 
 
As the United States will concede, Ms. Lattany has no prior criminal history, this was not 
a violent crime, and she is a mother with children who will be greatly affected by the absence of 
their mother for even 45 months. United States v. Battles, 745 F.3d 436, 443 (10th Cir. 2014) 
(downward variance granted on the grounds that “such a dispensation would ‘at least mitigate the 
impact of [Ms. Battles’s] incarceration on her children’ and would not otherwise contravene the 
sentencing goals listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”); United States v. Mackay, 20 F.Supp.3d 1287, 
1297-99 (D. Utah 2014) (imposing lower sentence under §3553 because, among other issues, the 
defendant had no prior criminal history); United States v. Zapata-Trevino, 378 F.Supp.2d 1321, 
1328-29 (D.N.M. 2005) (same). 
  
Ms. Lattany has taken full responsibility for what he has done and is paying a dear price 
for her mistakes. But those mistakes do not define her. She is a good mother who is deeply 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 19     filed 07/27/23     USDC Colorado     pg 3
of 4

4 
 
connected to her family and her faith. A young woman of color who legitimately built a business 
from the ground up that served as an asset to her community. She is everything that we would 
hope a citizen would be, save for the serious errors and lapses in judgment at issue here. 
Respectfully, the Court should craft a sentence that will keep the honest things in her life in 
place, while having the least impact on her children, which are the most important part of her 
world. There is a truth that Ms. Lattany should have thought of these things before engaging in 
the crime that she did, but the lessons she has learned here are real. Once she has completed her 
sentence, this court will not hear from her again.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted for the Defendant 
s/Jason Flores-Williams, Esq.  
1851 Bassett St., #509 
Denver, CO 80202 
Phone: 303-514-4524 
Email: Jfw@jfwlaw.net 
Counsel for Defendants/Claimant 
 
Date: 7.28.23 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on this date, 7.28.23, that I electronically filed the within document 
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such 
filing(s) to all counsel of record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jason Flores-Williams 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jason Flores-Williams 
 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 19     filed 07/27/23     USDC Colorado     pg 4
of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.223008.19.0.pdf

Size

119,628 bytes

SHA-256

3a41bdbdff4e2e78c7288173a1545c044b521c2022d4d1033ebe75266d1fc0f8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.223008.19.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)