Defendant’s Sentencing Position — United States v. Fiege (Dkt. 58, D. Minn.)

Summary

Defendant's Sentencing Position in United States of America v. Jared John Fiege, Criminal No. CR-21-55 (MJD/LIB), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, filed June 6, 2022 by attorney Bruce Rivers. It states that on March 11, 2021 the defendant was charged with mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft and felon in possession of a firearm, and that on July 14, 2021 he pled guilty to one count of Wire Fraud and one count of Aggravated Identity Theft. The argument cites Nelson v. United States and Kimbrough v. United States on the advisory role of the guidelines. The defense asks the court to sentence him to 60 months and states that it will argue further factors orally.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 7

                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                  )
                                           )            Criminal No.: CR-21-55 (MJD/LIB)

       Plaintiff,                          )
                                           )
Vv.                                        )
                                           )           DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING
JARED JOHN FIEGE,                          )           POSITION
                                           )
              Defendant.                   )

                                      BACKGROUND

       On March 11, 2021, Mr. Fiege was charged with five counts of Mail Fraud, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1341; four counts Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343; two counts of Bank

Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; four counts of Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); and one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). PSR ¥ 1. On July 14, 2021, he pled guilty to one count of Wire

Fraud and one count of Aggravated Identity Theft. PSR { 2.

                                        ARGUMENT

       Since Booker, the Supreme Court has emphasized the limited role the guidelines ought to

play in sentencing a defendant. They carry no presumption of reasonableness for a sentencing

court. Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 351 (2009) (per curiam). Sentencing courts may vary

from the guidelines based on considerations, including simply disagreeing with the guidelines’

treatment of an offense. See, e.g., Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 110-11 (2007). And

variances from the guidelines do not need to be accompanied by “extraordinary” circumstances.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 47 (2007). The necessary sentencing touchstone is not the

guidelines, but rather 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which directs a court to impose a sentence “not greater

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 7

than necessary” to honor the factors enumerated in that section. See, e.g., United States v. Huff,
514 F.3d 818, 820 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[A] district court’s job is not to impose a ‘reasonable’
sentence. Rather, a district court’s mandate is to impose ‘a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes’ of section 3553(a)(2).” (citation omitted)). This is an
inherently individualized and restrictive inquiry, since the primary enumerated goal of § 3553(a) is
sentencing balance. Gall, 552 U.S. 49-50.

I. A SENTENCE OF MONTHS FULLY ACCOMPLISHES THE SENTENCING
GOALS SET FORTH IN 18 U.S.C. § 3553(A).

Mr. Fiege respectfully suggests that a sentence of 60 months will achieve the statutory
sentencing goals pursuant to § 3553(a). To demonstrate why a downward variance from the
Sentencing Guidelines is an appropriate sentence, Mr. Fiege puts forth the nature and
circumstances of the offense; his history and characteristics; societal and personal sentencing
needs; and the need to avoid disparate sentences. Each of these factors demonstrates that for this
case, a reduced sentence will serve as a just punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

18 U.S.C. § 3553 outlines the following factors for the court to determine a sufficient but
not greater than necessary sentence which are:

(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;

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 3 of 7

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for . . . the applicable
category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth
in the guidelines .. .;

(5) any pertinent policy statement . . . issued by the Sentencing Commission;

(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.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense.

The nature and circumstances of the offense are set out in Paragraphs 6-17 of the
Presentence Report and Paragraph 2 of the Plea Agreement. On or around April 2020 through
August 2020, Mr. Fiege initiated a scheme, defrauding individuals, state and federal government
programs, and financial institutions by creating bank accounts to obtain others’ identities, applying
for state and federal benefit programs using others’ identities, creating and using false
identification forms and contact information, and other acts.

Mr. Fiege started the scheme after using his family member’s computer, R.B., an
individual who prepared taxes for friends and former coworkers, and accessed individual’s names,
birth dates, and social security benefits. Using these identifications, Mr. Fiege applied for
Economic Injury Disaster loans (EIDL) and the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance program. He
received $17, 495 from the SBA under the identity of T.L. Additionally, Mr. Fiege created bank
accounts using these identities. He created emails and purchased pre-paid cell phones, claiming to
be these individuals.

Mr. Fiege provided these financial institutions and state and federal programs with mailing
addresses that were neither his nor any of the identities he used to apply. He would intercept these

mailings before they reached the indicated address. On July 14, 2021, Mr. Fiege took

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 4 of 7

responsibility for his actions and timely pled guilty to one count of Wire Fraud and one count of
Aggravated Identity Theft.
B. Mr. Fiege’s History and Characteristics.

Mr. Fiege’s parents divorced when he was a toddler. He spent most of the time with his
mother, his primary caretaker, and two weekends a month at his father’s house. However, his
father had an irregular work schedule which would usually lead to one of the weekends being
cancelled. Although he communicated often with his father, Mr. Fiege had a difficult relationship
with his stepmother. He believes she was resentful of the time and money that was required to
provide for him and attempted to obstruct communication with his father. Ms. Fiege, the
Defendant’s mother, confirmed that Mr. Fiege’s stepmother made it difficult to co-parent with his
father. Additionally, the Mr. Fiege’s father admitted that his second wife would say cruel things
about the Mr. Fiege.

Mr. Fiege felt supported as a child. He had a close relationship with his grandparents, who
were very involved in his life. He would have breakfast at his grandmother’s apartment every
morning before leaving for school and he would go to hockey games regularly with his
grandfather. Sadly, Mr. Fiege’s relationship with his grandparents was cut short. When he was 10-
years old, Mr. Fiege found his grandmother’s body in her apartment. A few months later, his
grandfather passed away suddenly. Due to their close bond, Mr. Fiege had a difficult time
processing their deaths and is still impacted by these events. His mother placed him in therapy, but
she believes he did not attend long enough to address the trauma he experienced.

In 2011, Mr. Fiege was diagnosed with depression. His next evaluation was in 2017, where
he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result from his grandparents’
deaths and incidents he responded to as an EMT. Although there may be residual trauma from his

line of work, Mr. Fiege was ultimately diagnosed with mood disorder. He attended therapy

4

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 5 of 7

intermittently after this diagnosis. Mr. Fiege believes that he would benefit from not only treatment
and medication, but a resolution of his charges and his return to the community. He feels that his
depression is linked to his legal troubles he has had since 2017.

Mr. Fiege has continuing support from his parents. Both had frequent contact with him
during his pretrial incarceration. His mother believes that he is intelligent but has problems that he
needs to work on to fully heal. She is willing to retire and move to Arizona with Mr. Fiege to help
him begin a fresh start. She wants to support him in any way to get “his life back to what it was
before all of this happened.” Mr. Fiege’s father also believes that his son is intelligent and a good
person but feels that the Defendant could have benefitted by spending more time with him.

Notably, Mr. Fiege realized he does not want to spend the rest of his life in continuing legal
trouble. He has resolved multiple cases and is looking forward to a fresh start. Mr. Fiege accepted
responsibility for his actions and admits he wrongfully obtained and utilized individuals’ credit
information. He regrets abusing the trust he had with Ron Booth, his step dad, and regrets the harm
he caused to the victims of his identity theft. Mr. Fiege wants to be a healthy, productive member
of society and work to pay the restitution that is owed.

Cc. Societal and Personal Sentencing Needs and an Appropriate Sentence.

In fashioning an appropriate sentence, the Court is directed to consider society’s needs for
a sanction that is a just punishment, promotes respect for the law, deters criminal conduct, and
reflects the seriousness of the offense, while ensuring the sanction is appropriate for the individual
offender before the Court.

As for the seriousness of the offense, Mr. Fiege pled guilty to one count of Wire Fraud and
one count of Aggravated Identity Theft. Initially, Mr. Fiege had a criminal history category of III
and a guideline range of 51 to 63 months, based on a total offense level of 22. The consecutive 2-

year sentence for aggravated identity theft results in a range of either 65 to 75 months or 75 to 88

5

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 6 of 7

months. However, due to Mr. Fiege taking responsibility for his other matters in St. Louis County
and Washington County, his criminal history category increased to IV. In St. Louis County, Mr.
Fiege admitted to a probation violation on December 9, 2021, regarding Theft offenses (DUCR-
17-1622; DUCR-17-2041; and DUCR-17-2785) and pled guilty to a Stalking offense (DUCR-17-
1622). With respect to Washington County, Mr. Fiege pled guilty to a Stalking offense (CR-18-
892). Due to Mr. Fiege’s acceptance of responsibility in these matters, the sentencing guidelines
range of imprisonment was amended to 63 to 78 months. Additionally, the guidelines mandate a
two-year sentence for the conviction of Aggravated Identity Theft.

Mr. Fiege carries remorse for his actions and timely pled to the instant offense. Since he
was charged with this offense, he has resolved his other pending criminal matters. Furthermore, he
has taken the opportunity to improve himself while in custody. Mr. Fiege has put in 1,120.65 hours
in education. He has participated in College Composition, Anger Management, Strategies for
Getting a Job with a Criminal History, Offender Corrections, and several other classes. Overall,
Mr. Fiege has completed 246 courses and 1,733 lessons. He plans to use the information and skills
he has learned to assist him with securing a job upon release. Additionally, Mr. Fiege is open to
attending therapy to better his mental health.

Mr. Fiege would like to move to Arizona with his mother once released. While in custody,
Mr. Fiege’s stepfather suffered from a stroke. He would like to assist his mother with caring for
him during this difficult time.

Mr. Fiege has faced many challenges while in custody. He has been in protective custody
for 14 months. For 73 days he was locked down for 23 hours a day, with one hour utilized for
exercise. He has not had any major discipline issues or tickets.

Society does not need a greater sentence of imprisonment imposed than the mandatory

minimum. The Defense respectfully suggests to this Court that a sentence of 60 months is

6

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB Doc. 58 Filed 06/06/22 Page 7 of 7

sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) and

promote respect for the law, as well as provide Mr. Fiege the opportunity to become a productive

member of society and allow him to be surrounded by those that support him.

While his father was one of the victims of his crimes, Mr. Fiege still enjoys the support of

his family, including his father.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Fiege respectfully suggests that this honorable court

sentence him to 60 months. The Defense will further argue orally other factors that may warrant

a lower sentence.

Date: May_. 2022 By:

Respectfully submitted,

RIVERS LAW FIRM, P.A.

/s/ Bruce Rivers

Bruce Rivers, Atty. ID 282698
Attorney for Defendant

701 Building Suite 300

701 Fourth Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Tel: (612)339-3939

Fax: (612)332-400

Email: bruce@riverslawyers.com

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mnd.193372.58.0.pdf

Size

433,657 bytes

SHA-256

25a5bc58c32981abd611ac197e0ba791275290af8d68c464683714bd5261f75f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mnd.193372.58.0.pdf

Original

archive.org