Court filing
Sentencing Memorandum by Jeffery Chillis, II — USA v. Sanders et al. (Dkt. 268)
Filed April 9, 2025 in Sanders; one of 83 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-04-09 |
U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington · No. 4:24-cr-00029-BP · Doc. 268 · 2025-04-09 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 24-00029-07-CR-W-BP
)
JEFFERY CHILLIS, II
)
)
Defendant.
)
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
On November 21, 2024, Jeffery Chillis, II, Defendant, pled guilty to Conspiracy to
Commit Wire Fraud, a Class C Felony. The final Presentence Report (PSR) reflects a guideline
range based upon a total offense level of 9 and a criminal history category of I. Thus, resulting in
a guideline imprisonment range of 4 to 10 months. Defendant is set for sentencing on April 14,
2025. Defendant has an outstanding objection to not receiving “acceptance of responsibility”
that could further reduce his guideline exposure.
The Defendant will be requesting this Court grant a downward departure, or a variance,
based on the combination of § 3553 factors as outlined in this memorandum. Defendant has
remained in custody since February 27, 2025. As of the sentencing date on April 14, 2025, he
will have been in custody for 46 days. Defendant is requesting time served with probation. The
Government is also requesting time served with probation.
As this Court is aware, in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme
Court held that the mandatory guideline system created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
(SRA) was unconstitutional. While the SRA still requires a court to give “respectful
consideration” to the Guidelines, “Booker permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 268 Filed 04/09/25 Page 1 of 4
2
statutory concerns as well.” Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570 (2007) (citing
Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 757) (See also Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594 (2007)).
I.
The § 3553(a) Sentencing Mandate
After Booker, federal sentencing is vastly different. Treating the Guidelines as advisory
requires that a court consider the guideline range calculation as merely one of many factors in
determining a sentence no greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). See Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 n.6 (2007); Kimbrough v.
United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570 (2007). The overriding principle and basic mandate of the
statute requires district courts to impose a sentence "sufficient, but not greater than necessary," to
achieve the four purposes of sentencing set forth in Section 3553(a)(2): (a) retribution; (b)
deterrence; (c) incapacitation; and (d) rehabilitation.
A.
The Guidelines and Other Factors Courts Must Consider in
Determining a Punishment that Fulfills the Sentencing Mandate
under § 3553(a)(2).
In determining the sentence minimally sufficient to comply with the Section 3553(a)(2)
purposes of sentencing, the court must consider several factors listed in Section 3553(a),
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;
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 268 Filed 04/09/25 Page 2 of 4
3
(3)
the kinds of sentences available;
(4)
the advisory guideline range;
(5)
any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;
(6)
the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and
(7)
the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 .S.C. § 3553(a) (2018).
Defendant’s History and Characteristics
Jeffery Chillis, II, is 31 years old and was born in St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after his
birth, his mother and father moved the family to Kansas City, Missouri. After living in Kansas
City, Missouri, for eight years, his family moved to Liberty, Missouri and then shortly after to
Columbia, Missouri, before settling down in Corpus Christi, Texas. He has lived in Corpus
Christi, Texas, for the majority of his life, aside from attending college in Houston, Texas, from
2011 to 2013. He has five siblings, two of whom also live in Corpus Christi, Texas, and one who
lives in Dallas, Texas. His mother is currently battling pancreatic cancer and she is undergoing
outpatient treatment. His father is an amputee and requires the use of a wheelchair to get around.
He has previously maintained employment as a cook for various restaurants in the state of Texas
and since 2022, he has also operated a food truck to supplement his income, providing additional
financial support to himself and his family.
Remorsefulness
The Defendant is deeply remorseful for his conduct in this case and will address the
Court during the sentencing hearing. He understands the wrongs he has committed in this case
and has a sincere desire to leave a better mark on society. Defendant has agreed to pay restitution
in the amount of $20,833. He is eager to pay off the restitution amount, return to work, return to
his family, and is fully committed to becoming a productive member of society.
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 268 Filed 04/09/25 Page 3 of 4
4
Remorse is a factor the Court is encouraged to consider. United States v. Fagan, 162 F.3d
1280, 1284-85 (10th Cir. 1998). Under the old departure analysis, "[b]ecause remorse is not a
prohibited factor, but a factor already considered in the Sentencing Guidelines, a sentencing
court may depart downward if it finds that remorse is present to an exceptional degree." Id. Now
that the Guidelines are merely advisory, the fact of a defendant's remorse is certainly relevant
under § 3553(a). These factors have renewed relevance after Booker.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Court consider all § 3553 factors outlined above
in fashioning a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of
sentencing. The Defendant and the Government are jointly requesting a sentence of time served
with probation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick J. O’Connor
Patrick J. O’Connor
Fed #78081
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
MO #52544
Kansas City, MO 64112
pjoconnor@wcllp.com
(816) 701-1100
Fax (816) 531-2372
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 9th day of April, 2025, a true copy of the foregoing document
was filed utilizing this Court’s ECF system, and that a copy of the foregoing document was then
served via this Court’s system for electronic distribution to all counsel and parties of record.
/s/ Patrick J. O’Connor
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 268 Filed 04/09/25 Page 4 of 4File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.268.0.pdf
- Size
- 184,733 bytes
- SHA-256
- b8ee25049fb5571859ba8be6c6622ad2ae870732a790e06f84604e7f4320f174
- Original
- PACER (login required)